Posted on 01/12/2016 12:08:14 PM PST by Zakeet
A federal appeals court on Monday tossed out a veteran's conviction for wearing military medals he didn't earn, saying it was a form of free speech protected by the Constitution.
A specially convened 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the First Amendment allows people to wear unearned military honors.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
We have a long history of jurisprudence on the 1st Amendment, so the types of things that are not “protected speech” are pretty well defined (with the notable exception of “obscenity”, which is only loosely defined).
So yes, you’re going to need to pass an amendment if you want to add an entirely new class of speech to the “unprotected” category.
“Would it be freedom of speech if I claimed to be a police officer, if I wasn’t?”
It all depends on the situation, and if there are additional factors present that show fraudulent intent. Just that speech alone is not enough to be a crime, or every actor in a police drama on television would be arrested.
For it to be fraud, you have to show criminal intent, not simply deception.
It is lying, that much is true. However, lying in and of itself is not criminal.
Actually, there are no “hate speech” laws in the United States, against any group.
“If so, it’s still FRAUD because any wannabe benefits in some way by his Stolen Valor. If not direct financial gain, then free drinks, meals, false admiration, etc.”
If it’s fraud then you can charge them with fraud. Problem solved, you don’t need a new law.
Really? Just go and rant about Islam and see what happens.
I rant about Islam all the time and I’ve never been arrested.
Probably because it’s not illegal in the United States.
Try it ... right now there’s some Demo-rat trying to get legislation passed to call Islamophobia hate speech a crime.
Speaking for all of us here who are federal judges, which would be all of us, we disagree with this court’s decision. Judges obvious have nothing special about them that should require or even elicit respect from others, so it is within our free speech rights to pretend that we are judges.
I’m sure that several of us here have even served as associate justices on the Supreme Court of the United States a time or two.
And being a judge is a great way to get sex hook ups in bars, as well as being invited to speak at public functions and getting discounts at fast food restaurants. Other judges have no right to criticize us for dressing up to take advantage of the whole “judge” thing.
I’d make my argument to SCOTUS that this is not speech. The wearer would not go to the trouble of buying and wearing medals not earned if they did not expect something in return.
This is an attempt to obtain a benefit by dishonesty. The gain does not have to be tangible. It can simply be the wearer being given more credence in his opinions, beliefs, etc.
It could be tangible as well. I guarantee if I ever saw a MOH winner in a restaurant, I would quietly pick up his check. Clients fly me biz class on airlines. Twice I have given coach-class military passengers on crutches my biz class seat so they would have more legroom. No big deal. I still got there. Is the improper wearing of a uniform now “speech?”
One would not be thanked for something that does not have value. When we are told “Thank you for your service,” the speaker is indicating they value us.
What’s next, the listing of unearned medals on job applications?
It doesn’t matter, you can’t simply pass a law to ban speech, because Amendments trump laws.
“The wearer would not go to the trouble of buying and wearing medals not earned if they did not expect something in return.”
Gee, a lot of people go to a lot of trouble to dress authentically as Star Wars Stormtroopers or Star Trek crew members. They must be trying to get something in return!!!
Or what about all those Civil War reenactors! Those are military uniforms too!
“This is an attempt to obtain a benefit by dishonesty.”
If that is true, then it’s already illegal. Prosecute them for fraud. You don’t need to pass a new law to do that, unless the truth is that you don’t have evidence to charge them with fraud and just want to punish speech.
Have to disagree. The First Amendment says: [The Federal] Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...
That would be cutting short the natural God-given right to express any opinion, whether the opinion is popular, or if it is unpopular.
The reason fraud and slander is not covered, is because there is no God-given right to fraud and slander, so that making a law against fraud and slander does not abridge the freedom of speech...because fraud and Slander, even though certainly forms of speech (more so than wearing a medal is) is universally recognized as morally wrong and thus not covered as part of a pre-existing right of free speech that the federal government is not allowed to abridge.
The reason that wearing the hard won honors that others have earned and you have not in order to glorify yourself by fooling others is not part of the God-given right to freedom of speech either.
Thus I can't see how one can make a case that the First Amendment allows this while not allowing all kinds of slander and fraud. If you take "freedom of speech" to not be a God given right to express any opinion, and expand it to mean freedom to say anything in any context whether or not it is morally wrong in some other way (other than being thought to be morally wrong by people that merely disagreed with the content of what was said)...like fraud and slander are, then you are stuck necessarily allowing fraud and slander of all forms. On the other hand, since fraud and slander are recognized as morally reprehensible and not part of a basic right of free speech of whatever opinion someone has, and thus not to be covered by the First Amendment, then other activity which is reprehensible like wearing medals in the context of stealing valor can not be protected either.
The word "abridging" here is telling. It specifically means abbreviating or cutting short the speech. Which I think properly means the kind of views somebody expresses. Thus even if the views expressed are morally reprehensible it is still protected, because the content of what opinions one expresses can't be abridged. And the founders saw it as a self evident truth that people had a pre existing right to have their say.
Now if congress made a law saying that this fellow could not even express the opinion that he should be allowed to wear such medals, THAT would be abridging the right he has to express his opinion...which is what the First Amendment was meant to cover. However actually wearing the medals in the context of dishonoring those who have sacrificed to steal some of their glory is NOT the same thing as merely wanting to express an unpopular opinion. There has never been a God-given right to do something like that, and never will be.
This is not opinion. This IS fraud for benefit, and the law simply codifies it.
PS, Civil War reenactors, Storm Troopers, etc, are not trying to obtain a benefit by fraud.
Wearers of unearned medals are.
“So yes, you’re going to need to pass an amendment if you want to add an entirely new class of speech to the “unprotected†category.”
It seems to me unlikely that Congress can impose involuntary servitude (the draft) but cannot proscribe stolen valor. They just need to make the argument that proscribing stolen valor is essential to their constitutional power to raise an army. I’m surprised that argument, which seems quite obvious to me, hasn’t been made yet.
The libtards and Demorats will do it. They will pass laws against hate speech towards mussies. Bet on it. Right now even without those laws you are condemned by the media and others for talking out against mussies.
I’m not really worried about your conjectures, sorry.
“I’m surprised that argument, which seems quite obvious to me, hasn’t been made yet.”
Probably because most legislators know that wouldn’t fly in a court of law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
