Congress looks for alternatives to "Stolen Valor"

[Vast LWC]

Yes, while you were distracted, the SCOTUS struck down "Stolen Valor", allowing people to lie about military experience and commendations.

Congress finally did something right, and the Supreme Court overturns it.

Good work jackasses.

Well, at least they're looking to make it work in a different way.

Legislators seek alternative to Stolen Valor Act after ruling - latimes.com

 

[Vast LWC]

What I want to know is:

Since when is FRAUD protected by the 1st amendment?

The person who brought the case to the court committed fraud by lying to an employer about military experience to get a job.

What an asshole.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I agree, but when does the court make sense? And got to love this corrupt government we have. CONGRESS of all people does the right thing and it's struck down. What a bizaaro world this is.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why didn't Roberts just rewrite it so it would be Constitutional?

 

[Inthemiddle]

What I want to know is:

Since when is FRAUD protected by the 1st amendment?

The person who brought the case to the court committed fraud by lying to an employer about military experience to get a job.

What an asshole.

Then that is between him and his employer, i.e. his constituents.

 

[pinqy]

What I want to know is:

Since when is FRAUD protected by the 1st amendment?

The person who brought the case to the court committed fraud by lying to an employer about military experience to get a job.

What an asshole.

Fraud is not protected. But since the Stolen Valor Act did not apply only to fraud, the court ruled it was unconstitutionally content-based since the government did not prove specific harm done by the lies. It also ruled that since Alvarez's career was ruined and would have been ruined anyway without the law because he's a lying jackass (ok, not the Court's specific words) the law wasn't specifically necessary for the cases of fraud.

 

[Katzndogz]

If Congress were serious about prohibiting fraud, obama would be in prison by now.

 

[candycorn]

I can't wait until there is a special situation as to where someone is injured due to this protected fraud being in their mind. For example, lets say that a guy lied about his service in Iraq to get a job at McDonalds, Boeing, St. Joseph's Hospital anywhere and he, for reasons totally unrelated, performs some sort of workplace violence to where people are held hostage or he makes threats or what have you. The police see that he supposedly is a vet and theorize that a lot of vets have PTSD...and are of the opinion that it won't end well so they use snipers. Or one of his co-workers figures that he's a trained combatant and uses lethal force in subduing him. Or any number of such scenarios.

This was a ruling by the court that I understand but vehemently disagree with. I hope to hell that employers begin more strictly observing records of those who claim military service and have 1-strike rules in place for those who commit this brand of fraud.

God bless our servicemen and women.
God damn those who lie about it.

With this I respectfully dissent.

 

[WillowTree]

Yes, while you were distracted, the SCOTUS struck down "Stolen Valor", allowing people to lie about military experience and commendations.

Congress finally did something right, and the Supreme Court overturns it.

Good work jackasses.

Well, at least they're looking to make it work in a different way.

Legislators seek alternative to Stolen Valor Act after ruling - latimes.com

congress can't regulate free speech as much as the democrat nazi pricks would like to.

 

[Vast LWC]

congress can't regulate free speech as much as the democrat nazi pricks would like to.

Strange, last I heard "impersonating a police officer" was a crime.

I guess I can just go and randomly harass people in a uniform now, right?

It's my 1st amendment right to do so, after all...

 

[pinqy]

congress can't regulate free speech as much as the democrat nazi pricks would like to.

Strange, last I heard "impersonating a police officer" was a crime.

It is. And the Alvarez ruling doesn't change that in any way.

[quoteI guess I can just go and randomly harass people in a uniform now, right?

It's my 1st amendment right to do so, after all...[/QUOTE]nope. Laws against impersonating a police officer have nothing to do with Stolen Valor.
You either didn't read or didn't understand the decision.

 

[Vast LWC]

nope. Laws against impersonating a police officer have nothing to do with Stolen Valor.
You either didn't read or didn't understand the decision.

Really, then please explain the difference. Feel free to be specific.

As far as I can see, the court decision defined lying as a first amendment right. They also made wearing false medals and ornamentation part of that 1st amendment right.

Therefore, if I lie and claim to be a police officer, and wear a badge, how is that not protected by that same right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SCOTUS ruled, move on

Nothing to see here

 

[Vast LWC]

SCOTUS ruled, move on

Nothing to see here

Congress is already working on an alternative that will partially fix the reversal, so there is quite a bit to see here.

It is quite disturbing that the SCOTUS decision let this asshole off the hook though.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SCOTUS ruled, move on

Nothing to see here

Congress is already working on an alternative that will partially fix the reversal, so there is quite a bit to see here.

It is quite disturbing that the SCOTUS decision let this asshole off the hook though.

Waste of time effort and paper

Why do you think you know better than SCOTUS, they're lawyers, are you?

 

[GoneBezerk]

Wow, the Left Wing Nut finally posted something right.

It seems Chief Justice's meds have made him lose his mind, he needs to be tested for his mental capacity to serve in the SCOTUS.

Someone in a bar lying about being a SEAL isn't a crime, just a liar....but if they make some money off the lie, get a job from the lie or make a political ad/speech as part of the lie.....then it should be a felony.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

nope. Laws against impersonating a police officer have nothing to do with Stolen Valor.
You either didn't read or didn't understand the decision.

Really, then please explain the difference. Feel free to be specific.

As far as I can see, the court decision defined lying as a first amendment right. They also made wearing false medals and ornamentation part of that 1st amendment right.

Therefore, if I lie and claim to be a police officer, and wear a badge, how is that not protected by that same right?

The emotional nature of this issue is why we have the First Amendment.

[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535“
U. S. 564, 573 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). As a result, the Constitution “demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid . . . and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union,
542 U. S. 656, 660 (2004).

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”).

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

Again, the Court’s ruling in this case is wise and appropriate.

 

[Katzndogz]

Whatever the penalty should be for stolen valor, it should not be subjected to federal penalties. Not everything is a federal crime. At best, the very most the feds should do is remove the grounds for lawsuits resulting from penalties imposed for such lying.

 

[Vast LWC]

nope. Laws against impersonating a police officer have nothing to do with Stolen Valor.
You either didn't read or didn't understand the decision.

Really, then please explain the difference. Feel free to be specific.

As far as I can see, the court decision defined lying as a first amendment right. They also made wearing false medals and ornamentation part of that 1st amendment right.

Therefore, if I lie and claim to be a police officer, and wear a badge, how is that not protected by that same right?

The emotional nature of this issue is why we have the First Amendment.

[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535“
U. S. 564, 573 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). As a result, the Constitution “demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid . . . and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union,
542 U. S. 656, 660 (2004).

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&#8221.

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

Again, the Court’s ruling in this case is wise and appropriate.

My point is, that there are already exceptions made to the 1st amendment for the public good.

e.g. impersonating a law officer.

Congress made a law which then indicated another exception to the amendment, along the same lines.

So, again, as this ruling sets a clear precedent, I can go and impersonate a police officer, and, if arrested, I can take my case to the courts, that law will eventually be overturned also.

 

[pinqy]

nope. Laws against impersonating a police officer have nothing to do with Stolen Valor.
You either didn't read or didn't understand the decision.

Really, then please explain the difference. Feel free to be specific.

If you had read the opinion you'd already know:

Finally, there are statutes that prohibit falsely representing that one is speaking on behalf of the Government, or prohibit impersonating a Government officer. These examples, to the extent that they implicate fraud or speech integral to criminal conduct, are inapplicable here.

As far as I can see, the court decision defined lying as a first amendment right.

No, they ruled that content based restrictions to free speech face strict scrutiny and needs to show real harm.

They also made wearing false medals and ornamentation part of that 1st amendment right.

nope. It's certainly illegal for military members to wear medals they're not entitled to and since it's not authorized to wear medals in civilian clothes (with a couple of rare exceptions) the ruling doesn't much affect wear and I'm not sure I saw it addressed.

Therefore, if I lie and claim to be a police officer, and wear a badge, how is that not protected by that same right?

nope, because impersonating a police officer is fraud and integral to criminal activity,

Simple lying is not fraud. Fraud, defamation, obscenity are not protected. Simple lying is not the same.