US Supreme Court strikes down Stolen Valor Act

Discussion in 'Waltenkommando' started by _Chimurenga_, Jun 28, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. _Chimurenga_

    _Chimurenga_ LE Gallery Guru

    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.
  3. The Supremes opinions are here

    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.
  4. sending cunts to jail beacuse they bullshit about a medal...
    what kind of moron passes a law like that
  5. Seemed a bit bloody harsh sending walts to jail.
  6. land of the free...more like the land of every cunt watching each other
    and gibbering down the line to the feds
  7. 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!;)
    • Like Like x 2
  8. 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.
  9. At which point it should become a criminal offence of fraud or theft having made a false declaration.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. 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.
  11. 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 :)
  12. 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.
  13. 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!:)
  14. 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?