• 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

ludahai said:
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?
Click to expand...
I didn't declare a defamation in this particular case, rather, I was using it as one of the unprotected usages of speech/expression. Sorry for any confusion. His benefit gained is a greater standing in the electorate by using medals he hasn't earned to falsely bolster his reputation. That is fraud and many fraud cases do in fact carry criminal penalties as well as tort liabilitites.
 
Groucho said:
This is not about slander or libel or fraud. It's about some guy claiming he has an award he doesn't have. It is making lying a crime, even if no harm (other than believing the lie) comes from it.

You guys really want that? You want everything anyone says to be subjected to a Truth Squad? You want the government to have the power to force us to always tell the truth? What's next: It's illegal to lie when someone asks if this dress makes her look fat?

Is this guy scum for doing this? Of course. That's not the issue. Don't be blinded by the dislike of this guy to open the door to having anything you say subject to government oversight.

The first amendment is meaningless if we only protect speech we agree with.
Click to expand...

If lying is a first amendment issue, then maybe we should rule unconstitutional laws which make it a crime to identify yourself as a police officer.
 
Areopagitican said:
How does getting kicked off the board prove his constitutional right?

I can't prove a negative.
Click to expand...
That's not what I was claiming. Fraud requires some benefit. His benefit from lying about his MoH was getting on the water board. Exposing him as a liar caused him to lose his benefit. Government interference is really not necessary if the freedom of speech of the people who expose a liar for his lies is protected.
 
Coronado said:
That's not what I was claiming. Fraud requires some benefit. His benefit from lying about his MoH was getting on the water board. Exposing him as a liar caused him to lose his benefit. Government interference is really not necessary if the freedom of speech of the people who expose a liar for his lies is protected.
Click to expand...
Gotta disagree Coronado, in these particular cases I don't think losing a cushy job is sufficient punishment for defrauding people. I as a private sector licensed professional don't simply lose commission if I commit fraud while presenting to clients or potential clients, I face fines and possible imprisonment because of not only the damage economically that I can do but the violation of public trust as well.

Violations of public trust as far as I'm concerned is a very valid issue because not only is the fraudster's actions detrimental to their own reputation but the reputation of the entire profession because these stories tend to make the news. In that respect the entire political climate is cheapened every time someone is caught for egregious violations of public trust. This is why I come down so hard on this particular case as well as the fact that the military was slapped in the face by this scumbag.

EDIT- As pertaining to paragraph 1. Not only do I face fines and imprisonment, I can also be sued into oblivion.
 
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...

I see this guy's case as an attention-getting . . . he made up some stories an got attention and affection. . . just like countless people who lie about having medical disorders and family issues to get compassion, a date, etc.

This is *wrong* in my opinion - but not horrid - thus - wrong but not a legal issue.

What would be *wrong* and what I would expect to be persecuted - is if someone lied about those benefits or awards in order to fleece the system - any system - such as applying for loans, getting a loan reduction, qualifying for medical care and so on.

See - to me there's a huge difference in *the lie* - it's not *the lie itself* but it's how the person used it and their intent behind maintaining the lie.
 
ludahai said:
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...
Click to expand...

Wearing a medal to which you are not entitled is no different than wearing a uniform to which you are not entitled, which is certainly not an issue of free speech. And as Dana points out, it is already illegal and acceptably so to impersonate an officer of the law or a member of our armed services-- a prohibition which can and should easily be extended to claiming to be a former member.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
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?
Click to expand...

Possibly, but there are already laws on the books to deal with such situations that have nothing to do specifically with claiming to be a Medal of Honor winner...
 
LaMidRighter said:
I didn't declare a defamation in this particular case, rather, I was using it as one of the unprotected usages of speech/expression. Sorry for any confusion. His benefit gained is a greater standing in the electorate by using medals he hasn't earned to falsely bolster his reputation. That is fraud and many fraud cases do in fact carry criminal penalties as well as tort liabilitites.
Click to expand...

And there are already laws on the books dealing with this...
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Wearing a medal to which you are not entitled is no different than wearing a uniform to which you are not entitled, which is certainly not an issue of free speech. And as Dana points out, it is already illegal and acceptably so to impersonate an officer of the law or a member of our armed services-- a prohibition which can and should easily be extended to claiming to be a former member.
Click to expand...

Is he wearing a medal, or just claiming he has one???

And if it is already illegal, why is this Congressional Act needed?
 
ludahai said:
Is he wearing a medal, or just claiming he has one???
Click to expand...

In the practical sense, what is the difference?

ludahai said:
And if it is already illegal, why is this Congressional Act needed?
Click to expand...

Because the law as written only applies to impersonating someone currently in service. Just because something could reasonably be done does not mean that it already has been.
 
ludahai said:
And there are already laws on the books dealing with this...
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure about that. Yes there are anti-fraud laws and on that I agree, but look how slippery this guy was with a specific law in place, imagine how he could wiggle out of a general fraud charge.
 
I hope you all don't think I am defending this loser, I am not. I just would be very surprised if this ruling from the Ninth Circus (like that one whoever started it) is overrulled this time...
 
Coronado said:
Quantify the harm. Tell me in measurable terms how this is different than run-of-the-mill lying.
Click to expand...

If he extracted just one vote from his opposition with this lie, that is real harm done to his opposition.

How much did it cost the city to hold new elections after he was tossed for this lie?.... again, real harm.
 
Crunch said:
If he extracted just one vote from his opposition with this lie, that is real harm done to his opposition.

How much did it cost the city to hold new elections after he was tossed for this lie?.... again, real harm.
Click to expand...

So anytime a politician lies about something to get elected, we can throw them in jail?
 
Well, every politician who has called Obama a socialist would be in jail, because that's a lie. What's that, Boehner? You don't think it's a lie? Well, I do. You're going to have to defend yourself in a criminal court case! If you manage to be found not guilty, I'll just comb over Media Matters and find some other thing you said that isn't true. Back to court you go!

See how this might get out of hand?
 
LaMidRighter said:
Gotta disagree Coronado, in these particular cases I don't think losing a cushy job is sufficient punishment for defrauding people. I as a private sector licensed professional don't simply lose commission if I commit fraud while presenting to clients or potential clients, I face fines and possible imprisonment because of not only the damage economically that I can do but the violation of public trust as well.

Violations of public trust as far as I'm concerned is a very valid issue because not only is the fraudster's actions detrimental to their own reputation but the reputation of the entire profession because these stories tend to make the news. In that respect the entire political climate is cheapened every time someone is caught for egregious violations of public trust. This is why I come down so hard on this particular case as well as the fact that the military was slapped in the face by this scumbag.

EDIT- As pertaining to paragraph 1. Not only do I face fines and imprisonment, I can also be sued into oblivion.
Click to expand...

But all of these things are already covered by law. If it's fraud, then it's fraud. What if he'd lied about his college degree? Same thing? Why is lying about military service something worse than that?

We don't need more laws in this case. What you maintain is the exact equivalent of Hate Crimes Legislation.
 
RightinNYC said:
So anytime a politician lies about something to get elected, we can throw them in jail?
Click to expand...

Well, that would lead to anarchy, because it would lead to having no elected officials anywhere. I mean. Additionally, both sides would just spend time pointing out how their opponent lied (and could easily factually prove things to be false or at least partially untrue).

This is why lying can NEVER be against the law. You would have to parse everything down to its minutest point and eliminate all opinion to prove something is a lie or is true.

For instance, I could easily say that if you tell me God created the Earth that you are lying. Because God knows you can't prove it factually.

If the lie reaches the point of being provable fraud, fine. But, once again, that's already covered in current law.
 
Deuce said:
Well, every politician who has called Obama a socialist would be in jail, because that's a lie. What's that, Boehner? You don't think it's a lie? Well, I do. You're going to have to defend yourself in a criminal court case! If you manage to be found not guilty, I'll just comb over Media Matters and find some other thing you said that isn't true. Back to court you go!

See how this might get out of hand?
Click to expand...

That's an opinion, actually.
And opinions are fine.

Lies and opinions are *very* different - lies are when you take what *is* truth (Obama is the President) and rewrite it (Obama is not our President) . . . opinions don't factor into facts/truth/lie at all.

So, no, no one should be punished for their opinions - nor sarcasm or satire. . . but outright lies, yes.

If someone's can't do it on the witness stand they shouldn't do it from the bully pulpit, either.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
That's an opinion, actually.
Click to expand...

It's not an opinion, actually, it's a matter of fact. What constitutes socialism is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of definition. It is empirically ascertainable whether Obama's political platform is not "socialistic" or not, hence if the platform does not meet the definition of socialism, it is a lie to ascribe it to him.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
That's an opinion, actually.
And opinions are fine.

Lies and opinions are *very* different - lies are when you take what *is* truth (Obama is the President) and rewrite it (Obama is not our President) . . . opinions don't factor into facts/truth/lie at all.

So, no, no one should be punished for their opinions - nor sarcasm or satire. . . but outright lies, yes.

If someone's can't do it on the witness stand they shouldn't do it from the bully pulpit, either.
Click to expand...

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