Appeals court: Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional

[apdst]

Actually I thought Don Imus's comment was taking out of context, and the whole thing was overblown. It was a joke, and I kind of found it funny.

It's a free speech issue not matter what. Unless you wanna crack down on the birthers as well.

Apples and oranges.

Running for public office, is basically filling out a resume/job application. I think it's considered fraud to lie on a job application.

 

[Your Star]

Apples and oranges.

Running for public office, is basically filling out a resume/job application. I think it's considered fraud to lie on a job application.

And it's been proven he is a natural born American citizen. So the birthers are clearly making fraudulent claims.

With that said they have every right to say what they are saying. It's America, you have the right to say whatever crap you want.

 

[apdst]

And it's been proven he is a natural born American citizen. So the birthers are clearly making fraudulent claims.

With that said they have every right to say what they are saying. It's America, you have the right to say whatever crap you want.

So, you're cool with a political candidate producing faked college diplomas, or any other docs that make him qualified to hold an elected office? You think those judges would b cool with a politician lieing about graduating from law school? Hell know they wouldn't! He'd be ****ting in their sandbox, then.

The question is: where does it end? Today, it's okay to lie about military service and awards received, tomorrow someone lies about everything else. There has to be a line in the sand, at some point.

It's one thing to say you're pro-gun/pro-life/anti-gun/pro-choice etc., whn you're not, but when it comes to official stuff like military service, or college educations, there needs to be some rules.

 

[apdst]

And it's been proven he is a natural born American citizen. So the birthers are clearly making fraudulent claims.

There are some highly educated folks that swear up, down and sideways that Bush orchestrated 9/11. Dan Rather used fake docs to prove that Bush was AWOL from the national gaurd. However, I don't think any of them should have faced legal action. They have to go through life being stupid; that should be punishment enough.

That's why you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Your Star]

So, you're cool with a political candidate producing faked college diplomas, or any other docs that make him qualified to hold an elected office? You think those judges would b cool with a politician lieing about graduating from law school? Hell know they wouldn't! He'd be ****ting in their sandbox, then.

The question is: where does it end? Today, it's okay to lie about military service and awards received, tomorrow someone lies about everything else. There has to be a line in the sand, at some point.

It's one thing to say you're pro-gun/pro-life/anti-gun/pro-choice etc., but when it comes to official stuff like military service, or college educations, their needs to be some rules.

Just because someone says something doesn't mean we can't call them out on it. If a politician comes out, and says he went to Harvard, yet never went to Harvard, we have the right to prove him wrong. He's a liar, but nothing illegal happened. The only illegal thing I could think off that could cause a person problems is forging official documents, but just saying stuff is perfectly legal.

 

[Your Star]

There are some highly educated folks that swear up, down and sideways that Bush orchestrated 9/11. Dan Rather used fake docs to prove that Bush was AWOL from the national gaurd. However, I don't think any of them should have faced legal action. They have to go through life being stupid; that should be punishment enough.

That's why you're comparing apples to oranges.

With that said they have every right to say what they are saying. It's America, you have the right to say whatever crap you want.

I guess you didn't read that part of my post.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

So, you're cool with a political candidate producing faked college diplomas, or any other docs that make him qualified to hold an elected office? You think those judges would b cool with a politician lieing about graduating from law school? Hell know they wouldn't! He'd be ****ting in their sandbox, then.

The question is: where does it end? Today, it's okay to lie about military service and awards received, tomorrow someone lies about everything else. There has to be a line in the sand, at some point.

It's one thing to say you're pro-gun/pro-life/anti-gun/pro-choice etc., whn you're not, but when it comes to official stuff like military service, or college educations, there needs to be some rules.

Oh noes!!! Political candidates are gonna lie about their accomplishments!!! If only there existed some sort of interconnected global network that let anybody with 10 minutes of free time research and debunk these claims! If only the public had some means of repudiating these assholes, something that could publicize their misdeeds and let people castigate them in public forums in a way that would instantly kill their political careers!

Oh well. Since we don’t live in a world with those things, I guess we have no choice but to EXPAND the GOVERNMENT‘S POWER. I wouldn’t listen to a big government liberal who advocated something like that, but since you’re a small government conservative, APDST, you obviously must have scrutinized the situation and grudgingly come to the conclusion that anathema, expanded government, is the only acceptable solution.

 

[RightinNYC]

Apples and oranges.

Running for public office, is basically filling out a resume/job application. I think it's considered fraud to lie on a job application.

It's not.

....

 

[American]

Do they even understand what valor is, or is that a foreign concept?

It doesn't require any to work on the 9th Circus Court.

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

Another in the long line of disgusting things our courts have ruled qualify as "free speech". I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[ludahai]

Another in the long line of disgusting things our courts have ruled qualify as "free speech". I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

We may not like the speech, but it is the First Amendment. I would rather allow distasteful speech rather than starting to decide what we will accept and what we won't. This guy is a scumbag, but the Constitution protects them too...

 

[Zyphlin]

Alright, lets get past some of the emotion here cause this is a highly emotional thing and look at this reasonable.

First, there seems to be conflicting information regarding whether or not lying on a job application is legally "fraud" or not. If its legally not, then trying to compare this to it is wrong.

Secondly, I'm not seeing where perjury was done here. Would the person that made the claim please clarify?

Thirdly, to a point I agree. I don't think we need to be going down the road of stating lying is somehow unprotected. The reason for this is there are definite times when lying is in and of itself not clear cut. This isn't one of those times, but it opens that door.

Fourth, I could see this as being wrong at the least civilly and possibly criminal none-the-less. People keep talking about damage. Lets remove the emotional hyperbole to the side a bit. The man was running for office. While running for office he made these claims. If its found that any individual donated money to his campaign based on the fact they believed him to be a Medal of Honor winner then there is actual, tangible, damage there being perpetrated as people donated money based on a false bill of goods.

Fifth, there seemed to be some mention he was actually GIVEN a medal at some point later based on his statements that he was a winner? Is this true? If so, did it come from someone giving them theirs or from the government? If from a person, again, you have evidence of damage. If it was from the government, then you have evidence of defrauding the government.

I personally think there are few lower things one can do as an American than claim military service when you didn't have it. However as an American it does bother me with the notion of somehow criminalizing such things due to its more broad ramifications.

 

[Groucho]

The honor of the Military is damaged by allowing scumbags to lie about awards they have earned. It reduces morale, reduces respect, it devalues the sacrifice of our men and women. And there is little surprise our more liberal posters see no problem with a ruling that does such.

For shame. The 9th Circuit will be overturned.

The shame is that conservatives who claim to be "strict constructionists" of the Constitution ignore it when their feelings are hurt.

 

[Groucho]

This isn't just lying. It's perpetrating a fraud, a scam on others of the most despicable kind.

A scam that is protected by the Constitution.

He didn't say it under oath (then it would be perjury). He didn't use this lie to con people out of money (then it would be fraud). He basically lied to enhance his resume (just like certain politicians have done!).

Of course we don't like it! Of course the guy is scum for doing it.

I also don't like it when the KKK marches or when protesters hold up signs saying "God Hates Fags" or whenever Ann Coulter speaks. But the point of the first amendment is this: We HAVE to protect speech we hate. Speech we all agree with doesn't need protection. The first amendment is meaningless otherwise.

The old quote about "I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it" apparently doesn't apply to some people here. I have to question whether they are indeed True Americans. (See? I can say that because of the 1st amendment).

 

[Groucho]

I sincerely believe that military honors, by definition, have a certain exclusivity that needs to be protected. Very few awards on this Earth are granted for the ultimate sacrifice, and by that exclusive nature their value is attained. By allowing individuals the right to also acquire many of the social bonuses, without taking any of the risk, detrimentally affects the emotional wealth behind the legitimate recipients of the award's receivers.

OK, I understand your concern, but how do you then make an exception to the 1st amendment to allow this without another amendment?

This is like flag burning. No one likes it, it insults all of us, but it's protected speech nonetheless. You'd have to change the constitution to prohibit it.

 

[Zyphlin]

He didn't use this lie to con people out of money (then it would be fraud).

Question,

If people donated to his campaign fund based in part on the belief he was a medal of honor winner, would you no consider that conning people out of money?

 

[Groucho]

Question,

If people donated to his campaign fund based in part on the belief he was a medal of honor winner, would you no consider that conning people out of money?

Interesting! I don't know. I suppose a DA could make that argument. Not sure if it would stick.

 

[Renae]

The shame is that conservatives who claim to be "strict constructionists" of the Constitution ignore it when their feelings are hurt.

I'm not ignoring it. The courts have restricted speech in the past. And will do so in the future. Obscenity laws are examples of restrictions of Free Speech based on the probably Harm such could do, and the needs of Society.

How many of you would like your child exposed to a say... someone having a T-Shirt showing a close up of two men engaged in anal sex? Say with the caption "Real Love"? It's just a Free Speech issue after all.

The issue isn't about whether or not "Lying" is a crime, it's about the Harm that is done to the Institution of the Military, Societies vested interest in that Institution, what it means and the Value of the Awards for service. The only person a 5-Star General Salutes first, aside perhaps the President, is that E-3 with a MOH. There is a REASON we hold such men in high regard, the award in such regard. Allowing it to be diluted in the Public Realm because it's "Free Speech" to claim you were awarded it harms the Military and it harms Society.

The 9th Circuit Court failed in their judgment, and will be over turned by the SCOTUS.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

This isn't just lying. It's perpetrating a fraud, a scam on others of the most despicable kind.

And that's already covered by law.

 

[Renae]

And that's already covered by law.

So you are against Hate Crime Legislation too? Just out of curiosity.

 

[Coronado]

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/08/17/08-50345.pdf

Generally speaking... Intentionally misrepresenting hard facts for your own personal material gain has not been protected by the First Amendment....

So what was his gain? Getting on the water board? He ended up getting kicked off of that once people found out he's a liar.

 

[Coronado]

Of course you don't get it. You see the end justifying the means. Society has both a NEED and the RIGHT to protect certain institutions, we do this through laws. If this were a case of a man bad mouthing MOH winners, I would agree with you 100%. It is not, it is an issue of fraud, of harm to society. Free Speech is a bumbersticker argument that only sounds good till you think about the matter.

Quantify the harm. Tell me in measurable terms how this is different than run-of-the-mill lying.

 

[Groucho]

I'm not ignoring it. The courts have restricted speech in the past. And will do so in the future. Obscenity laws are examples of restrictions of Free Speech based on the probably Harm such could do, and the needs of Society.

Yes, but content based speech simply because it is insulting has never been banned, and never should be.

How many of you would like your child exposed to a say... someone having a T-Shirt showing a close up of two men engaged in anal sex? Say with the caption "Real Love"? It's just a Free Speech issue after all.

Now you're getting the content of the speech confused with the "Time, Place and Manner" exception, which does NOT prohibit the speech itself but only the way it is presented. You have every right to say certain things but not using a loudspeaker while standing nude in the middle of a courtroom, for instance. That T-shirt is NOT illegal, but certainly could violate a "time, speech and manner" restriction.

The issue isn't about whether or not "Lying" is a crime, it's about the Harm that is done to the Institution of the Military, Societies vested interest in that Institution, what it means and the Value of the Awards for service. The only person a 5-Star General Salutes first, aside perhaps the President, is that E-3 with a MOH. There is a REASON we hold such men in high regard, the award in such regard. Allowing it to be diluted in the Public Realm because it's "Free Speech" to claim you were awarded it harms the Military and it harms Society.

I agree. I could argue that idiots who claim that Obama was born in Kenya also harm America. I could argue that anyone who protests against the war harms America. I could go on and make lots of comparisons here, but I hope you get the point: We can't allow our government to decide which speech is OK and which is not.

Seriously, your argument seems to be the exact opposite of what conservatives usually say -- that government has too much power, that they have no right to tell us what to do or think. Apparently, you throw out your convictions when someone says something you don't like, hm?

 

[Groucho]

So you are against Hate Crime Legislation too? Just out of curiosity.

I certainly am, as I said here plenty of times. I think Hate Crime legislation is unconstitutional, in that in punishes people for what they think.

 

[Coronado]

I certainly am, as I said here plenty of times. I think Hate Crime legislation is unconstitutional, in that in punishes people for what they think.

I am as well. We should punish the act, not the thought.