Jump to content


Photo

Lying Is Free Speech


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 AQuaker

AQuaker

    General

  • General
  • 3,381 posts

Posted 28 June 2012 - 01:33 PM

Guess y'all heard that the Supreme Court found in favor of the jackhole who lied that he had received the Congressional Medal of Honor and struck down "Stolen Valor Act." The First Ammendment covers lying even though society rules it as anti-social and in this case idiotic. Maybe it is or was too broad a law, but I think it should be illegal to lie to advance your situation. If I was that man, I would be mortally ashamed to show myself in public.

Edited by AQuaker, 28 June 2012 - 01:54 PM.


#2 FJBoccia

FJBoccia

    General

  • + Editor
  • 2,912 posts

Posted 28 June 2012 - 05:46 PM

Guess y'all heard that the Supreme Court found in favor of the jackhole who lied that he had received the Congressional Medal of Honor and struck down "Stolen Valor Act." The First Ammendment covers lying even though society rules it as anti-social and in this case idiotic. Maybe it is or was too broad a law, but I think it should be illegal to lie to advance your situation. If I was that man, I would be mortally ashamed to show myself in public.


Well, most of us saw this coming. It's almost impossible to single out one type of lie and make that illegal, but not the others. The basic arguement was over gain; did this man's lie lead to personal financial or other tangible gain? Since it didn't --admiration or approbation not being tangible-- then it is protected. As I believe many of us said months back, if this law were upheld then every politician in America could be prosecuted for telling falsehoods for personal gain.

FJB

#3 appell8

appell8

    General

  • + Paratrooper
  • 8,615 posts

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:29 PM

Frank, d'accord. Yes, we projected this a while back. The good news is that the plurality and concurrence endorsed the goal of the statute and approved a re-write more narrowly tailored to achieve those goals.

Waiting for the President to condemn the Court for striking down an overwhelmingly approved Act of Congress . . . Yeah, right.

Bad day for appellate nerds like me.

#4 IMike

IMike

    General

  • General
  • 2,332 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 12:13 AM

Bad day for appellate nerds like me.


Bad day for the whole country, when known falsehood becomes protected speech!

Nor was it a statute which broadly prohibited falsehoods. It was passed under Congress' power to raise and support an army. Pursuant to that power, it has created honors for those who have served. It seems to me that it is a perfectly appropriate measure to defend those honors against misappropriation. It would remain to be shown that the claimant knew the claim was false, but that would rarely be an issue.

Mike

Edited by IMike, 29 June 2012 - 12:13 AM.


#5 AQuaker

AQuaker

    General

  • General
  • 3,381 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 07:35 AM

You would think that some of these rightwing, born again pick a party Congressmen/women would be advocating that lying should be against the law because it says so in the Ten Commandments. Imagine no lying in politics. What a concept. :lol:

#6 ianhay_7

ianhay_7

    General

  • General
  • 3,150 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 09:40 AM

You would think that some of these rightwing, born again pick a party Congressmen/women would be advocating that lying should be against the law because it says so in the Ten Commandments. Imagine no lying in politics. What a concept. :lol:

Yep, he missed his calling in life, a lawyer, politician or estate agent (house seller in case it doesn't translate in american speak).

#7 G.MITCHELL

G.MITCHELL

    General

  • General
  • 4,636 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 08:35 AM

From the report of the Supreme Court on - United States vs Alvarez No.11-210 decided 28.06.2012


...the Government's interest in protecting the integrity

of the Medal of Honor is beyond question, the First Amendment requires

that there be a direct causal link between the restriction imposed

and the injury to be prevented. Here, that link has not been

shown. The Government points to no evidence supporting its claim

that the public's general perception of military awards is diluted by

false claims such as those made by respondent. And it has not

shown, and cannot show, why counterspeech, such as the ridicule respondent

received online and in the press, would not suffice to

achieve its interest.

In addition, when the Government seeks to regulate protected

speech, the restriction must be the "least restrictive means among

available, effective alternatives." Ashcroft, 542 U. S., at 666. Here,

the Government could likely protect the integrity of the military

awards system by creating a database of Medal winners accessible

and searchable on the Internet, as some private individuals have already

done...

Shells - it seems that listing this man, electronically, as a "Jack-hole", as you have the right to do so and did, is his come-uppance. The Medal of Honour still retains its dignified reverence.

ps, what strange "ads" will we have headlining our forum pages now that such a swear-word has been used ?


Edited by G.MITCHELL, 05 July 2012 - 08:40 AM.


#8 AQuaker

AQuaker

    General

  • General
  • 3,381 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 06:56 PM

Well considering there are so many people practically knocking each other down to create the latest website, APP, and database, and there are a lot of recovering vets who probably would not mind doing inputting the data, you would think that either the Pentagon or NARA would have taken the time to create such a database
and not just for Medal of Honor recipients. I think for all major military awards. It is a database they could easily sell to Ancestry.com. It is my opinion that state and federal government are pinching too many nickles when it comes to using technology to the benefit of its citizens. Then again some folks gets the heeby-jeebies and start whinging about the government creating databases about medical records etc., but they are willing to spill their guts on Facebook.

"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress."
John Adams

#9 G.MITCHELL

G.MITCHELL

    General

  • General
  • 4,636 posts

Posted 06 July 2012 - 04:16 AM

Whhooah ! Shells, :o


Use Adams with caution, we have some legal-eagles reading !

#10 AQuaker

AQuaker

    General

  • General
  • 3,381 posts

Posted 06 July 2012 - 08:12 AM

Tongue in cheek, tongue in cheek. And I wonder how many lawyers are serving in Congress? :lol:

Whhooah ! Shells, :o


Use Adams with caution, we have some legal-eagles reading !



#11 FJBoccia

FJBoccia

    General

  • + Editor
  • 2,912 posts

Posted 06 July 2012 - 12:15 PM

Tongue in cheek, tongue in cheek. And I wonder how many lawyers are serving in Congress? :lol:

Doug, hide your eyes.

R u serius? (I'm unleashing my inner twit.)

Until a generation ago, damn near three-quarters of the congress were lawyers. Law was made by attornies for attornies, and then judged by attornies. No wonder we're screwed up.

You might add at this point, Mark Twain's observation: There is no natural criminal class in America, except congress.

And THAT was over 140 years ago. Still the truth.

Oh, well, far afield...

Doug, you can open your eyes again.

#12 appell8

appell8

    General

  • + Paratrooper
  • 8,615 posts

Posted 06 July 2012 - 07:46 PM

Thank you all for the delicacy. Lawyer jokes don't faze me. There are a lot of lawyers I don't like.

But. When you start associating lawyers with Congresscritters (as the Colonel would say) . . . y'all are getting closer to fighting words . . .

#13 AQuaker

AQuaker

    General

  • General
  • 3,381 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 10:56 AM

I use have a theory that every state selects the biggest horses pattoos in their state and sends them to congress. Now I think the majority votes for the loudest nimcompoops, which explains the North Carolina General Assembly.

Thank you all for the delicacy. Lawyer jokes don't faze me. There are a lot of lawyers I don't like.

But. When you start associating lawyers with Congresscritters (as the Colonel would say) . . . y'all are getting closer to fighting words . . .


Edited by AQuaker, 07 July 2012 - 10:57 AM.


#14 IMike

IMike

    General

  • General
  • 2,332 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 02:05 PM

Until a generation ago, damn near three-quarters of the congress were lawyers. Law was made by attornies for attornies, and then judged by attornies. No wonder we're screwed up.

Frank, suppose you are an automobile mechanic. Someone brings in a car with a problem. Not being familiar with that particular make/model, you turn to the manufacturer's technical publications,

Would it be helpful if those publications were written by someone with a doctorate in Philosophy, who had never come any closer to the operation of an automobile than the driver's seat of an entirely different car? Or should they be written by an automotive engineer, someone who, even if he didn't participate in designing the machine, was familiar with the principles and techniques involved and could express the necessary directions in a comprehensible manner? How would the mechanic interpret an instruction such as, "Connect the whatsit to the thingamagig located next to the thingy?"

And do you seriously maintain that our Congress of a generation ago was more deeply flawed than the one we have now? Personally, I think any legislator who was handed a 1500 page bill and told to vote now and read later, and who voted for the bill he had not even read (let alone understood), should not be impeached -- he should be taken out and shot! Seriously! It was precisely to avoid such a "rule by decree" that we created the Congress in the first place! Such a violation of his duty as a legislator is in fact an act of treason -- an assault on the fundamental principles of representative government.

Whoever may be elected to the body, Congress then creates laws. Those laws are then enforced, applied, and either obeyed or violated. Somebody needs to tell people what the laws mean, and assist people in their interactions with those laws. These people are lawyers; and it is helpful to these lawyers if the people who write the laws are familiar with existing law and legal principles. Beyond that, while there are truly horrible examples of bad, corrupt, incompetent, venal and unprincipled lawyers, I have no qualms about comparing the ethical principles and practice of the profession as a whole to that of any other profession existing (although IMHO that of military officers would come a close second). Furthermore, it is certain beyond question that no profession does a better job of policing its membership to protect the public interest!

Mike

#15 FJBoccia

FJBoccia

    General

  • + Editor
  • 2,912 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 11:37 AM

Mike, I removed the post before you responded.

FJB




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users