US Supreme Court strikes down Stolen Valor Act

_Chimurenga_

LE
Gallery Guru
#1
A morning of grim news -

"Supreme Court strikes down Stolen Valor Act for military medals
June 28, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the Stolen Valor Act, which made it a crime to lie about receiving military medals.

By a 6-3 decision, the high court said the right to lie about medals and military service, while unattractive, is protected by the 1st Amendment.

The decision came in the case of Xavier Alvarez, a former member of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in Southern California. Alvarez had claimed he was a former Marine and recipient of the Medal of Honor; in fact, he had never served in the military.

Alvarez, a resident of Pomona, was sentenced to three years probation, a $5,000 fine and community service. His attorneys appealed; the 9th Circuit of Appeals upheld his appeal, and the Department of Justice appealed to the Supreme Court.

The law was passed by Congress in 2005 and signed by President George W. Bush. It called for a possible one-year prison term."
 
#2
How is it protected by the 1st Amendment? Granted he has a right to free speech but having freely spoken, the Stolen Valor Act should be implemented because his words were untrue.

The cynic in me suspects that the verdict has been reached to give the opportunity for some lawyers to make lots of bucks overturning the ruling.
 
#4
The Supremes opinions are here

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf

Walting, like everything else in the US, is apparently on a much bigger scale

For example, in a single year, more than 600 Virginia residents falsely claimed to have won the Medal of Honor. An investigation of the 333 people listed in the online edition of Who’s Who as having received a top military award revealed that fully a third of the claims
could not be substantiated.4
When the Library of Congress compiled oral histories for its Veterans History Project, 24 of the 49 individuals who identified themselves as Medal of Honor recipients had not actually received
that award.5
The same was true of 32 individuals who claimed to have been awarded the Distinguished Service
Cross and 14 who claimed to have won the Navy Cross.6
Notorious cases brought to Congress’ attention included the case of a judge who falsely claimed to have been awarded two Medals of Honor and displayed counterfeit medals in his courtroom;7
a television network’s military consultant who falsely claimed that he had received the
Silver Star; and a former judge advocate in the Marine Corps who lied about receiving the Bronze Star and a Purple Heart.9
But for a government to make lying (absent any tangible harm, fraud, etc) an offence is a slightly chilling concept.
 
#8
I agree with not having one.

Walting is a sad symptom we should pity. Unless it involves kids or ripping off Charitys!

There are more serious crimes being committed today to be wasting time on people with a symptom. Don't read this wrong, I like a good piss take like the rest and Arrsepida does it well but some fuck witts take it far to seriously and have started witch hunt groups who are now appointing themselves as detectives and undercover specual walt hunters. No training, no accountability and no regulation.

These people are now living in their own walting world of private dick and fabricating evidence and linking together flimsy leads in order to mount their trophies to their wall of shame.

We then start getting the splinter groups who want to out do the other group and prove they're the best and will invent anything to score points.

Where does it end up.. Nothing more than witch hunts were anyone with a grudge or score to settle will shout walt and fabricate then call the feds at every opputunity.

The WMH are a classic example as to why we would never or should never get a law passed in this country for a stolen valour.
As proved this week. To many gullible idiots with flagging egos!;)
 
#9
Seemed a bit bloody harsh sending walts to jail.
Some of these Walts have used their lies to gain renumerations. There have been those with faked documents getting tens of thousands of dollars of VA benefits among other things. Its a Bit more than claiming a Silver Star in a Pub.
 
#10
Some of these Walts have used their lies to gain renumerations. There have been those with faked documents getting tens of thousands of dollars of VA benefits among other things. Its a Bit more than claiming a Silver Star in a Pub.
At which point it should become a criminal offence of fraud or theft having made a false declaration.
 
#11
The Supremes opinions are here

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf

Walting, like everything else in the US, is apparently on a much bigger scale



But for a government to make lying (absent any tangible harm, fraud, etc) an offence is a slightly chilling concept.
I agree--this law could have been narrowly limited to cases of fraud or other separate crime from the mere lying, as reprehensible as the lie may be in this context. As the Court said:

Absent from those few categories where the law allows content-based regulation of speech is any general exception to the First Amendment for false statements. This comports with the common understanding that some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation, expression the First Amendment seeks to guarantee. See Sullivan, supra, at 271 (“Th[e] erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate”).
It is the same principle that undergirds the Second Amendment--freedom means there will be some who abuse it but those should not deprive the vast majority of others their freedom, whether speech or carrying firearms.
 
#12
I agree--this law could have been narrowly limited to cases of fraud or other separate crime from the mere lying, as reprehensible as the lie may be in this context. As the Court said:



It is the same principle that undergirds the Second Amendment--freedom means there will be some who abuse it but those should not deprive the vast majority of others their freedom, whether speech or carrying firearms.
Problem with such laws as good meaning as they are, there will always be some bunch of self appointed Walt detectives who will invade people's private lives in order to catch their target out.
Such laws in this country would ultimately get abused by folk wanting to settle a score, the disgruntled ex making an allegation in a divorce case for example :)
 
#13
Problem with such laws as good meaning as they are, there will always be some bunch of self appointed Walt detectives who will invade people's private lives in order to catch their target out.
Such laws in this country would ultimately get abused by folk wanting to settle a score, the disgruntled ex making an allegation in a divorce case for example :)
True but the greater worry with any law that limits personal and associational freedom is the government using it abusively to control the people. Laws that are not grounded in principle but are rather reactions to "emergencies or crises" (real or too often manufactured by the government) is they can be so easily misused by despotic (actual or wannabe as with our current Masters) regimes. Our so-called Patriot Act is a good example of the government using terrorism as a crisis needing unprecedented government power (warrantless searches etc.) to enact a law that is too dangerous to a Constitutional republic.
 
#14
The terrorism act is a prime example were the government has used cravats in legislation for their own propose and compleatly unrelated to a terrorist act!

The same would happen if we was to have an act that prosecuted sad fucks who lied just to big it up. They just need the piss ripped out of them when they openly bling and brag.
What we don't need is something that gives the green light for any fuck Witt to go playing Perry Mason, digging into people's private lives, doing all this "honey trap" shit thinking they are some undercover keyboard double agent, hoping to find some tenuous links so to point and shout Walt and beat their chests from the roof tops.

It's the same reason we stop hunting witches. Some poor minger with ginger hair and a fuck off Walt on her snooter wouldnt swallow the local priests sacred water during a gobble so she ends up being accused of being a witch by the same priest and finds herself being burnt. You can't please anyone these days!:)
 
#15
How odd. By that they are saying that anyone who lies is protected by the first amendment. So in effect, as an example, anyone who lies in court can't be done for misleading the court and so on. I doubt that they would allow that, so why allow this?
 
#16
How odd. By that they are saying that anyone who lies is protected by the first amendment. So in effect, as an example, anyone who lies in court can't be done for misleading the court and so on. I doubt that they would allow that, so why allow this?
Lying alone is protected but not if it constitutes a separate crime like fraud or inciting a riot.
 
#17
How odd. By that they are saying that anyone who lies is protected by the first amendment. So in effect, as an example, anyone who lies in court can't be done for misleading the court and so on. I doubt that they would allow that, so why allow this?
No, they are commiting perjury which is a crime.

I think it's worth noting that in the particular case that went to the Supreme Court (if I've got it right), the individual had not lied in order to gain an advantage, he started telling porkies after he had been appointed dogcatcher of One Horse, Nebraska or whatever. He was a fibber, not a fraudster. You may think those fibs are particularly offensive (and you are right) but once you start down the road of the government being able to say that lie x is worse than lie y and should be punished then you're starting on a very slippery slope.
 
#19
No, they are commiting perjury which is a crime.

I think it's worth noting that in the particular case that went to the Supreme Court (if I've got it right), the individual had not lied in order to gain an advantage, he started telling porkies after he had been appointed dogcatcher of One Horse, Nebraska or whatever. He was a fibber, not a fraudster. You may think those fibs are particularly offensive (and you are right) but once you start down the road of the government being able to say that lie x is worse than lie y and should be punished then you're starting on a very slippery slope.
Well, perjury is lieing at the end of the day.

Well, although he did not use his lies to get his position, he is still committing fraud as he is gaining out of telling people he had served and gained a Medal of Honour, which will mean that he will get people buying him drinks and adoring him etc etc. His objective at walting was to gain at the end of the day.
 
#20
I agree--this law could have been narrowly limited to cases of fraud or other separate crime from the mere lying, as reprehensible as the lie may be in this context. As the Court said:



It is the same principle that undergirds the Second Amendment--freedom means there will be some who abuse it but those should not deprive the vast majority of others their freedom, whether speech or carrying firearms.
Well, perjury is lieing at the end of the day.

Well, although he did not use his lies to get his position, he is still committing fraud as he is gaining out of telling people he had served and gained a Medal of Honour, which will mean that he will get people buying him drinks and adoring him etc etc. His objective at walting was to gain at the end of the day.
What a Walt is going to walk in a pub with a sign on his back advertising "war hero" buy me a pint:)
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top