- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 27,392
- Reaction score
- 20,164
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Problem is, he did not receive it, so it's a lie and the First Amendment does not protect lies.
Yes, it does.
Problem is, he did not receive it, so it's a lie and the First Amendment does not protect lies.
Stupid judges upholding the First Amendment. What were they thinking??
picture
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.
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.
If you keep repeating it to yourself over and over, maybe it will happen!They aren't upholding the 1st Amendment, they are misapplying it, and will be overturned.
"Many legal experts" may view it that way, but that is as close as it gets. The deciding element is apparently the degree of quantifiable harm the lie has caused.
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.
Stolen Valor Act Is Declared Unconstitutional by Circuit Court - At War Blog - NYTimes.comWe 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.”
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.
Stolen Valor Act Is Declared Unconstitutional by Circuit Court - At War Blog - NYTimes.com
SCOTUS will overturn this ruling.
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.This isn't just lying. It's perpetrating a fraud, a scam on others of the most despicable kind.
Funny how you choose to ignore the First Amendment when it demands results you don't like.Funny how the First Amendment matters to some of you when it harms out Military.
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.
Funny how you choose to ignore the First Amendment when it demands results you don't like.
That makes no sense whatsoever. :sarcasticclapI'm not ignoring, I'm able to see more then just the end that justify's the means. Unlike you.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
This isn't just lying. It's perpetrating a fraud, a scam on others of the most despicable kind.
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.
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.
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?
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?
This is a First Amendment issue.
It's sad you don't care about it when it's speech you don't like.
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.