I agree with this one. I think that the First Amendment protects our rights to be jerks. I like the fact that we can tolerate awful speech that other countries cannot.
I find the man to be disgusting but so long as he is not profiting from his lie I don’t think its any of the government’s business. You can also make a slippery slope argument about the government stepping in and deciding to be the arbiter of what is truth and what is a lie and punish citizens accordingly. Whats to stop them from deciding to step in and punish people based on their opinions about other things? Could Obama and the Democrats eventually extend this type of logic and aggressively police our thoughts?
“I find the man to be disgusting but so long as he is not profiting from his lie I don’t think its any of the government’s business.”
Stolen non-monetary benefits can harm the people they are stolen from just as much or more than non-monetary benefits.
“Whats to stop them from deciding to step in and punish people based on their opinions about other things?”
But, in fact, punishing someone who is lying is NOT punishing people based on their opinions. Someone who lies about his military service has the opinion/belief/knowledge that he did NOT serve in the military and IS putting forth something that is the OPPOSITE of his opinion.
The government already punishes several types of lying, including perjury and fraud. Why not stealing valor also?
This is NOT policing thought. Lying is not 100% protected speech (I refer you again to perjury and fraud). Nor should it be. This is policing an evil act which harms other people and society.
I wonder if the Stupremes would be cool with people claiming to be a SCOTUS judge.
Obama’s cool with illegals impersonating citizens, so I guess anything goes.