• 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

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
(CBS/AP) WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a federal law making it a crime to lie about receiving the Medal of Honor and other prized military awards, with justices branding the false claim "contemptible" but nonetheless protected by the First Amendment.

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.
 
Last edited:
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 by "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.
reprehensible speech - even when stealing valor - is protected speech
roberts got this one right
 
Goof grief© If lying, cheating and stealing were illegal, 87.3% of the population would be in jail, not to mention 100.5% of the politicians. This is AMERICA, where everything is a scam.
 
No more protected classes, please. and throw out all previous protected classes, too.
 
No more protected classes, please. and throw out all previous protected classes, too.

gonna flush that Constitution after you finish wiping your ass with it?
 
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.

They never argued that such people "deserved" the "valor." Only that such activity shouldn't be criminalized.
 
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.

Of course they don't deserve the valor, but that doesn't mean it should be criminalized. I agree with Roberts that its unconstitutional.

I wouldn't compare Roberts to Souter yet. Until today, his rulings have had a strong conservative bent to them.
 
reprehensible speech - even when stealing valor - is protected speech
roberts got this one right

Reprehensible speech still depends on speech.

When you allow people to lie, that makes speech unreliable.

How do we know this ruling was trustworthy? For all we know, it could be a lie.
 
I don't much like the ruling in alot of ways, but I understand the logic and agree it was probably the right ruling.
 
I don't much like the ruling in alot of ways, but I understand the logic and agree it was probably the right ruling.

What logic? They were lying.
 
Proper, and good ruling. Free speech, even when it's vile should always be upheld.
 
Proper, and good ruling. Free speech, even when it's vile should always be upheld.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Merely claiming to be something you are not should not be a criminal offense. Now if they if they were claiming to be something they are not to get tv interviews, jobs ,benefits and etc then they should be charged with fraud and the people who were the victims of that fraud should be able to sue.
 
Last edited:
Then why is it illegal for me to provide false information on all sorts of forms - for things like school applications, etc.

If you're lying to gain some sort of financial benefit that otherwise would have gone to someone else I really think that's a serious issue. It's not just free speech when it's intent - it amounts to theft.

Or is the act of valor thing more broad reaching than that and not just reliant on you claiming funds under false pretenses?
 
Lying is not illegal until it crosses into fraud. The supreme court struck down the law because it would apply it situations that clearly are not fraudulent, such trying to impress women in a bar.
 
Then why is it illegal for me to provide false information on all sorts of forms - for things like school applications, etc.

If you're lying to gain some sort of financial benefit that otherwise would have gone to someone else I really think that's a serious issue. It's not just free speech when it's intent - it amounts to theft.

Or is the act of valor thing more broad reaching than that and not just reliant on you claiming funds under false pretenses?

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.
 
Lying is not illegal until it crosses into fraud. The supreme court struck down the law because it would apply it situations that clearly are not fraudulent, such trying to impress women in a bar.

Women hate being impressed.
 
Back
Top Bottom