• 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!

Appeals court: Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional

Coronado said:
Stupid judges upholding the First Amendment. What were they thinking??
Click to expand...

They aren't upholding the 1st Amendment, they are misapplying it, and will be overturned.
 
Coronado said:
picture
Click to expand...

Well, he's technically right.

9th Circuit finds a right to lie - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Judge Milan Smith, writing for colleague Thomas Nelson, said the law went too far, even though many legal experts view deliberately false speech as unprotected by the Constitution.

We have no doubt that society would be better off if Alvarez would stop spreading worthless, ridiculous, and offensive untruths. But, given our historical skepticism of permitting the government to police the line between truth and falsity, and between valuable speech and drivel, we presumptively protect all speech, including false statements, in order that clearly protected speech may flower in the shelter of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

While asserting that they were not endorsing "an unbridled right to lie," Smith and Nelson said regulations of false speech that have been upheld by the courts were limited to narrow categories in which a direct and significant harm was caused. But, they said, the harm caused by people making false statements about military decorations was not evident. The judges also said it wasn't clear that prosecution was necessary to discourage fraudsters, who are generally humiliated by public revelation of their lies.
Click to expand...
 
MrVicchio said:
They aren't upholding the 1st Amendment, they are misapplying it, and will be overturned.
Click to expand...
If you keep repeating it to yourself over and over, maybe it will happen!
 
This isn't just lying. It's perpetrating a fraud, a scam on others of the most despicable kind.
 
Your Star said:
This isn't a conservative, liberal issue. It's a first amendment issue, and the first amendment was upheld.
Guys a scumbag, but that's not against the law.
Click to expand...

Funny how the First Amendment matters to some of you when it harms out Military. Shocking? Not really, pathetic? Yes.

This isn't a First Amendment discussion.


We have no doubt that society would be better off if Mr. Alvarez would stop spreading worthless, ridiculous and offensive untruths,” the ruling said. “But, given our historical skepticism of permitting the government to police the line between truth and falsity, and between valuable speech and drivel, we presumptively protect all speech, including false statements.”

In his dissenting opinion in the case, Judge Jay S. Bybee asserted that no proof of harm was needed to limit Mr. Alvarez’s untruthful speech. “Such false representations not only dishonor the decorations and medal themselves, but dilute the select group of those who have earned the nation’s gratitude for their valor,” Judge Bybee wrote.

Representative John T. Salazar, a Democrat from Colorado who introduced the bill in 2005, said he was disappointed with the court’s ruling. In a statement, Mr. Salazar said, “I am confident that upon appeal to the Supreme Court their misguided decision will be overturned. We live in a society that wants to honor our nation’s veterans.” He added, “As long as I am in Congress, I will not give up the effort to protect their honor. These fake heroes use lies to claim undeserved federal veterans benefits and defraud their communities into believing they are someone they are most certainly not for personal gain.”
Click to expand...
Stolen Valor Act Is Declared Unconstitutional by Circuit Court - At War Blog - NYTimes.com

SCOTUS will overturn this ruling.
 
MrVicchio said:
Funny how the First Amendment matters to some of you when it harms out Military. Shocking? Not really, pathetic? Yes.

This isn't a First Amendment discussion.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.

Stolen Valor Act Is Declared Unconstitutional by Circuit Court - At War Blog - NYTimes.com

SCOTUS will overturn this ruling.
Click to expand...

It's certainly a possibility, but I don't think you're arguing that for the right reasons. This was a three-judge panel populated by three Republican appointees - not the typical 9th Circuit decision.
 
stealthy said:
This isn't just lying. It's perpetrating a fraud, a scam on others of the most despicable kind.
Click to expand...
Since fraud usually requires some amount of money to have been stolen, please tell me how many dollars and cents this man obtained from his actions relating to the false medal. Thanks.
 
MrVicchio said:
Funny how the First Amendment matters to some of you when it harms out Military.
Click to expand...
Funny how you choose to ignore the First Amendment when it demands results you don't like.
 
The Stolen Valor Act
[Greyhawk]

It occurs to me that given the discussion of The Stolen Valor Act (SVA), it might be worthwhile to read it...

§ 704. Military medals or decorations

(a) In General.-- Whoever knowingly wears, purchases, attempts to purchase, solicits for purchase, mails, ships, imports, exports, produces blank certificates of receipt for, manufactures, sells, attempts to sell, advertises for sale, trades, barters, or exchanges for anything of value any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, or the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal, or any colorable imitation thereof, except when authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(b) False Claims About Receipt of Military Decorations or Medals.-- Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(c) Enhanced Penalty for Offenses Involving Congressional Medal of Honor.--

(1) In general.-- If a decoration or medal involved in an offense under subsection (a) or (b) is a Congressional Medal of Honor, in lieu of the punishment provided in that subsection, the offender shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(2) Congressional medal of honor defined.-- In this subsection, the term "Congressional Medal of Honor" means--

(A) a medal of honor awarded under section 3741, 6241, or 8741 of title 10 or section 491 of title 14;

(B) a duplicate medal of honor issued under section 3754, 6256, or 8754 of title 10 or section 504 of title 14; or

(C) a replacement of a medal of honor provided under section 3747, 6253, or 8747 of title 10 or section 501 of title 14.

(d) Enhanced Penalty for Offenses Involving Certain Other Medals.-- If a decoration or medal involved in an offense described in subsection (a) or (b) is a distinguished-service cross awarded under section 3742 of title 10, a Navy cross awarded under section 6242 of title 10, an Air Force cross awarded under section 8742 of section 10, a silver star awarded under section 3746, 6244, or 8746 of title 10, a Purple Heart awarded under section 1129 of title 10, or any replacement or duplicate medal for such medal as authorized by law, in lieu of the punishment provided in the applicable subsection, the offender shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
via Mudville Gazette

Read the milblogs on this
 
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.
 
RightinNYC said:
Yes, it is.



It's certainly a possibility, but I don't think you're arguing that for the right reasons. This was a three-judge panel populated by three Republican appointees - not the typical 9th Circuit decision.
Click to expand...

Yeah, cause the "Republican Nominated" matters. I can think of a few SCOTUS GOP Judges that turned... out to be not as thought. Immaterial sir to the discussion. Society has a vested interest in protecting the honor of both it's Military and those whom Serve. That's the basis for the law, and why SCOTUS will overturn this.
 
Coronado said:
Funny how you choose to ignore the First Amendment when it demands results you don't like.
Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring, I'm able to see more then just the end that justify's the means. Unlike you.
 
MrVicchio said:
I'm not ignoring, I'm able to see more then just the end that justify's the means. Unlike you.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense whatsoever. :sarcasticclap

These folks who so narrowly read the First Amendment always amuse me. Imagine if they read the Second Amendment this narrowly.
 
MrVicchio said:
Funny how the First Amendment matters to some of you when it harms out Military. Shocking? Not really, pathetic? Yes.

This isn't a First Amendment discussion.
Click to expand...

This is a First Amendment issue.
It's sad you don't care about it when it's speech you don't like.
 
Coronado said:
That makes no sense whatsoever. :sarcasticclap

These folks who so narrowly read the First Amendment always amuse me. Imagine if they read the Second Amendment this narrowly.
Click to expand...

Dissent said:
Consistent with the principle set forth in New York Times, in Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964), that “the knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection.”
Click to expand...

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....
 
Last edited:
Coronado said:
That makes no sense whatsoever. :sarcasticclap

These folks who so narrowly read the First Amendment always amuse me. Imagine if they read the Second Amendment this narrowly.
Click to expand...

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.
 
RightinNYC said:
Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged.




Fraud (which is a specifically defined crime) is already against the law.
Perjury is already against the law.

If someone lies about their military service in the course of committing fraud or perjury, it's still a crime.
Click to expand...

Where is perjury being committed here? Even with the fraud, is he gaining something at the expense of someone else as a result of this misrepresentation?
 
LaMidRighter said:
The logic behind it was what really got me. They called fraud and perjury free speech issues, maybe if they were to do a little research they would find that defamation, fraud, perjury, and immenently dangerous language is outside any protections of the first amendment of the U.S. constitution. Obscenity is somewhat protected, as are "lesser" forms of speech, but deliberate falsehood is not. I just cannot wrap my head around the decision.
Click to expand...

Defamation against whom?
How is this perjury?
What benefit is he unlawfully gaining from others as a result of this "fraud"?
What is immenently dangerous" about this language?
 
ludahai said:
Where is perjury being committed here? Even with the fraud, is he gaining something at the expense of someone else as a result of this misrepresentation?
Click to expand...

What would someone be "gaining something at the expense of someone else" (to use your words) by screaming 'fire' in a crowded theater? Your attempt at nullifying his argument is, in my opinion, factitious. Oliver Holmes Jr.'s preeminent note on the subject maintains that the right to free speech ends where deliberate misrepresentation of concrete fact begins.

Link to note: Schenck v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
ludahai said:
Where is perjury being committed here? Even with the fraud, is he gaining something at the expense of someone else as a result of this misrepresentation?
Click to expand...

My apologies for not being clear, that was what I was getting at.

The poster before me had argued that this decision would allow perjury or fraud. Both would remain illegal even is this decision is upheld.
 
Your Star said:
This is a First Amendment issue.
It's sad you don't care about it when it's speech you don't like.
Click to expand...

How did you feel when Don Imus called those basketball chicks, "nappy headed ho's"? Prolly didn't dig it too much, huh?

Just putting things into perspective for you...

...anyway, this is nothing less than legalizing fraud, no matter how much legal mumbo-jumbo you attach to it. This ruling allows assholes like Jesse McAdams to tell their lies and get away, scot free.

All this ruling did, was lower the standard so all the assholes in the world can dish out their bull****, and get away with it.
 
apdst said:
How did you feel when Don Imus called those basketball chicks, "nappy headed ho's"? Prolly didn't dig it too much, huh?

Just putting things into perspective for you...

...anyway, this is nothing less than legalizing fraud, no matter how much legal mumbo-jumbo you attach to it. This ruling allows assholes like Jesse McAdams to tell their lies and get away, scot free.

All this ruling did, was lower the standard so all the assholes in the world can dish out their bull****, and get away with it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom