• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court strikes down Stolen Valor law

Anagram said:
It is more broad reaching. From the article- "Alvarez made his claims by way of introducing himself as an elected member of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in Pomona, Calif. There is nothing to suggest that he received anything in exchange or that listeners especially believed him."

I do agree with your scenarios though. When speech amounts to theft it should not be protected under the first amendment. However, when nothing is received in exchange, no matter how contemptible it may be, I think it should be protected.
Click to expand...

So someone who uses such info to benefit monetarily thus denying someone else those funds would (could) still be charged for lying . . . this act doesn't touch on that; it's just 'in general - you can make up stories'
 
danarhea said:
In the aftermath of the Obamacare decision, this one flew under the radar, but it is revealing something very important about the political makeup of the court, and the direction that Chief Justice John Roberts is taking. Although the majority opinion was written by Kennedy, Roberts once again sided with the Liberal faction of the court in striking this law down.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy "first amendment" here. Those who wear medals that they never earned do not deserve any of the valor that they steal from those who actually fought and possibly died to earn theirs. This decision is flawed, and although this would have passed without Roberts' vote, I am disappointed that Roberts would side with those scumbag liars who steal what isn't theirs.

And now the question that we are dying to know the answer to - Could John Roberts be the next David Souter?

Article is here.
Click to expand...


I agree, they are scumbag liars if they wear medals they didn't earn.

But in a sense, the American flag stands for the freedom to burn it in protest of American policy.

I cringe that he have to make freedom that absolute, the WBCs and fake medals and even Hustler, but it is what it is.
 
Nobody burns American flags.

Greatest story of all time.
 
Your Star said:
Lying is protected under the first amendment.
Click to expand...

Yes, but there are most certainly many exceptions. Lying under oath, for example, is perjury and is a criminal offense. Lying to the SEC or FBI is a criminal offense, as Martha Stewart now knows. Lying to one's probation or parol officer is a criminal offense. The list goes on.

The Metal of Honor opens so many national security doors, providing MOH winners access to Congressional halls, the WH, military bases, military and political functions, military tours, etc., that using a stolen MOH could be a national security issue, and it's most certainly fraud. Fraud is a criminal offense. That's why I'm leaning toward believing that SCOTUS should have upheld the law criminalizing this kind of fraud.
 
DiAnna said:
Yes, but there are most certainly many exceptions. Lying under oath, for example, is perjury and is a criminal offense. Lying to the SEC or FBI is a criminal offense, as Martha Stewart now knows. Lying to one's probation or parol officer is a criminal offense. The list goes on.

The Metal of Honor opens so many national security doors, providing MOH winners access to Congressional halls, the WH, military bases, military and political functions, military tours, etc., that using a stolen MOH could be a national security issue, and it's most certainly fraud. Fraud is a criminal offense. That's why I'm leaning toward believing that SCOTUS should have upheld the law criminalizing this kind of fraud.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I feel the law as written was applied to broadly. If they limited it to only cases where lying about MOH were fraud I'd be alright with it. But when it criminalizes speech where there is no material gain, it overreaches.
 
As one of the very few people here that has a Silver Star and a Congressional Medal Of Honor, I am shocked that anyone would make such ridiculous claims and potentially dilute my heroic status.
 
specklebang said:
As one of the very few people here that has a Silver Star and a Congressional Medal Of Honor, I am shocked that anyone would make such ridiculous claims and potentially dilute my heroic status.
Click to expand...

You know - my husband once knew a guy in the military who didn't deploy because he developed a serious health condition - he qualified for disability and he never left the states. Years later he died and my husband went to the funeral and at the wake he learned that the guy had made up all sorts of stuff about his 'injury in the service and horrific events he experienced while overseas' - his family kept asking my husband for 'more truth' and 'more details about what happened while he was deployed' - my husband actually did his best to not make the guy into an outright liar while not lying about anything himself. So he gave vague responses like well - it's just not something you can talk about, you know - it was so difficult for everyone in their own way. Things that bother me might not bother him - and so on . . . ec.

I think he felt so embarrassed to just have had his certain health issues that if he made up a big story he'd look better or have more support from people.
 
Anagram said:
I disagree. I feel the law as written was applied to broadly. If they limited it to only cases where lying about MOH were fraud I'd be alright with it. But when it criminalizes speech where there is no material gain, it overreaches.
Click to expand...

From my prospective (which is certainly not from a legal or constitutional background), there is material gain in perpetrating the fraud of being a MOH winner, because of the free access, free accommodations, and other free services offered to MOH winners. I saw a tv show about just such a guy, who used a fake MOH to gain access to tens of thousands of dollars worth of lifestyle enhancements. That's fraud. :shrug:

I'm not overly upset by this ruling. I just believe that it is indeed fraudulent, and the person does indeed receive personal gain from the fraud.
 
DiAnna said:
From my prospective (which is certainly not from a legal or constitutional background), there is material gain in perpetrating the fraud of being a MOH winner, because of the free access, free accommodations, and other free services offered to MOH winners. I saw a tv show about just such a guy, who used a fake MOH to gain access to tens of thousands of dollars worth of lifestyle enhancements. That's fraud. :shrug:

I'm not overly upset by this ruling. I just believe that it is indeed fraudulent, and the person does indeed receive personal gain from the fraud.
Click to expand...

Not fraud; it's stupidity, and i don't care for my gubment subsidizing it via judicial legislation.
 
I think they made the right decision. This is kind of like the Westboro Baptist Church stuff. Yes, it's despicable, but that's what free speech is about.

Although in this case, it's kind of hard to take advantage of, since I would imagine in a lot of cases if you lied about being a soldier to gain some sort of benefit (other than respect you didn't earn), that would be fraud, and you could still be prosecuted for it.
 
Your Star said:
Proper, and good ruling. Free speech, even when it's vile should always be upheld.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. With rights come responsibilities. The first amendment does not give you the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Yes, there ARE limits to rights. The question is how much should those limits be?
 
justabubba said:
reprehensible speech - even when stealing valor - is protected speech
roberts got this one right
Click to expand...

So is lying in all cases protected via the first amendment IYO?
 
specklebang said:
As one of the very few people here that has a Silver Star and a Congressional Medal Of Honor, I am shocked that anyone would make such ridiculous claims and potentially dilute my heroic status.
Click to expand...

As the only member of DP who has the Medal of Flatulence, I am offended by your statement. :mrgreen:
 
danarhea said:
As the only member of DP who has the Medal of Flatulence, I am offended by your statement. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

We all applaud you for throwing your body on that mouse fart to protect your dumpster Fritos!
 
Kindly address me as General Specklebang. supreme commander of the flatulence brigade. We now wonder if we should have given you that medal or not.

danarhea said:
As the only member of DP who has the Medal of Flatulence, I am offended by your statement. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
 
The wearing of unearned medals really bugs me. If posing as a "hero" gets somebody off, well, that's pathetic but harmless (like, sigh, burning the flag). If gain is to be had, if it's a con, well, it's a con. How different is it than somebody posing as a banker or doctor? Just asking.
 
nota bene said:
The wearing of unearned medals really bugs me. If posing as a "hero" gets somebody off, well, that's pathetic but harmless (like, sigh, burning the flag). If gain is to be had, if it's a con, well, it's a con. How different is it than somebody posing as a banker or doctor? Just asking.
Click to expand...

I get pissed then I feel pity. How sad are you when you have to pretend to be someone else just to like yourself?
 
jerry7 said:
Does free speech include "hate speech"? It's illegal in Canada and some European countries. Before long it will be before the SC and it appears now that as Europe goes so goes America.
Click to expand...

Yes, it should.
 
DiAnna said:
Yes, but there are most certainly many exceptions. Lying under oath, for example, is perjury and is a criminal offense. Lying to the SEC or FBI is a criminal offense, as Martha Stewart now knows. Lying to one's probation or parol officer is a criminal offense. The list goes on.

The Metal of Honor opens so many national security doors, providing MOH winners access to Congressional halls, the WH, military bases, military and political functions, military tours, etc., that using a stolen MOH could be a national security issue, and it's most certainly fraud. Fraud is a criminal offense. That's why I'm leaning toward believing that SCOTUS should have upheld the law criminalizing this kind of fraud.
Click to expand...

This law was much broader than fraud, which is why it was struck down. Yes fraud should be illegal, but just lying about something that wouldn't be considered fraud otherwise should not be illegal in a country that has free speech.
 
molten_dragon said:
I don't think it's fraud unless you're getting something material by lying. And if you are, that's already illegal, because it's fraud.
Click to expand...


But you are getting something material for it. The person that sparked this case was leveraging the respect from others for his lie, to gain a political seat. That seat comes with a salary, perks, and prestige. Most liars that claim something they are not like this are looking in some way to gain from it.
 
Everyone in this thread is a liar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom