Stolen Valor Act Decision

BlueStreak · #1 06-30-2012, 10:36 PM

This decision was also handed down on the same day that Conservative Cheif Justice Roberts sided with Liberals on the PPACA decision.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...160717915.html

A 6-3 decision in favor of protecting compulsive liar Alvarez's 1st Amendment Rights. This coupled with the fact that the Obama Administration sought to uphold the "Stolen Valor" law must make Thursday a very confusing day for you wingnuts.

So, what say you?

(This is gonna be fun.

)

Dave

bhunter · #2 07-01-2012, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

This decision was also handed down on the same day that Conservative Cheif Justice Roberts sided with Liberals on the PPACA decision.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...160717915.html

A 6-3 decision in favor of protecting compulsive liar Alvarez's 1st Amendment Rights. This coupled with the fact that the Obama Administration sought to uphold the "Stolen Valor" law must make Thursday a very confusing day for you wingnuts.

So, what say you?

(This is gonna be fun.

)

Dave

I side with the court's decision. The government ought not be used to bridle someone's speech even if the speech is distasteful. I'm generally against both sides when it comes to the addition of new laws and regulations. Interestingly, the Stolen Valor Act was introduced both in the the House and the Senate by democrats.

d-ray657 · #3 07-01-2012, 12:45 AM

Kennedy made a good point that punishing a simple falsehood sets a dangerous precedent. The Court suggested that publishing a falsehood with the intent that someone rely on it could be punished, if the statute was narrowly drawn to directly address the harm. That is pretty close to the point at which the falsehood ceases to be a victimless crime. I would limit the coverage of any criminal sanction for such communication to where there is an intent that someone rely on the false statements, there is actual reliance on the false statement, and such reliance causes actual harm. The harm should be real, like financial loss, but not just offended sensibilities.

Regards,

D-Ray

BlueStreak · #4 07-01-2012, 02:01 AM

A couple weeks ago, I went to Colonial Williamsburg.

They had a little play on Duke of Gloucester Street set up to demonstrate this very thing.

A group of soldiers had overheard a man expressing loyalty to the British Crown and calling the American troops "fools". They assembled a kangaroo court, declared him guilty of "seditious speech" and set about to tar and feather him. One of the Burgesses discovered what was going on and put a stop to it, ordered them to let the man go.

Why?

"Expressing an opinion, even a distasteful one, is not a crime. Every man has a right to speak his mind."

You would be amazed the people I heard bitching as they walked away from that play.....who did not get it....AT ALL. A man standing behind me mumbled, "You can't even escape the liberal bullshit in Williamsburg."

Just thought I'd share that.

Dave

BlueStreak · #5 07-01-2012, 02:14 AM

Oh, and BTW. I got this article from my Navy squadrons FaceBook page. They were, figuratively speaking, tarring and feathering Mr. Alvarez and blaming the Democratic Party for the entire incident.

Until I pointed out that the "Stolen Valor" legislation was introduced by Democrats, the Obama administration had advocated upholding the law in this case and that two of the conservative justices had sided with the liberals in passing this decision.

Last I checked, there was only one comment following mine; "Yeah, whatever."

Geez.

Dave

Boreas · #6 07-01-2012, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

You would be amazed the people I heard bitching as they walked away from that play.....who did not get it....AT ALL. A man standing behind me mumbled, "You can't even escape the liberal bullshit in Williamsburg."

Actually, this doesn't surprise me at all, Dave.

I wish it did but it doesn't.

John

Oerets · #7 07-01-2012, 08:46 AM

You mean free speech applies to even words I don't want to hear or understand? What a concept, think it will ever catch on?

Barney

Boreas · #8 07-01-2012, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oerets

You mean free speech applies to even words I don't want to hear or understand?

Barney

Mostly, free speech applies to money. Everyone wants and understands money.

John

Rex E. · #9 07-01-2012, 09:55 AM

The court made the correct ruling. I can claim all day long I'm a decorated war hero. Only when I start receiving monies, good or services for such claim, should I be prosecuted.

d-ray657 · #10 07-01-2012, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rex E.

The court made the correct ruling. I can claim all day long I'm a decorated war hero. Only when I start receiving monies, good or services for such claim, should I be prosecuted.

Why did I take so many words to say that?

Thanks for interpreting.

Regards,

D-Ray