Stolen Valor Act struck down by congress

[NickS VR4]

Supreme court not congress.

To start the concept of lieing about military service/awards is not somethign I support.

Keep in mind this ruling is about the result of the application of the "stolden valor act" in the case of Xavier Alvarez.

To quote the latimes

I think that is the key to the issue. NOrmally we'd think that someone would lie about service or metals for gain. In this case it was just about rep and status. And I agree with the court when they say that "the 1st Amendment protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace.".

I think the current track by legislators to make a new law making it a crime to seek a benefit by lying about military service is the way to go.

I detest that people do this. But, I think making it illegal by itself does work given the protections of the 1st amendment.

If that is the case, than would it be illegal to lie on your resume for personal gain? As long as no military benefits are sought (which it should be verified anyhow) from places like the VA, than I don't see how this could be made illegal either. I think it would be up to the employer to verify what the person had claimed.

[Alan92RTTT]

Think of its this way.

If I walk around saying "I'm a lawyer" who cares.

If I say "I'm a lawyer" and get you to pay me for legal advice. Thats fraud.


One is free speach, one it illegal. Its really a case of we don't need laws for this.

Its like the guy from AGT that claimed more service/injuries than he had. He failed on the show and now his name is mud. He'll never have a chance at a carear as a muscician because he just trashed his reputation. But, should he go to jail for that too?

[BaadVR4]

Rep and status, in and of themselves, represent a gain. If there were "nothing to gain", Alvarez would never have lied. Just sayin'.

[NickS VR4]

Rep and status, in and of themselves, represent a gain. If there were "nothing to gain", Alvarez would never have lied. Just sayin'.

So does lying, should that be a crime?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[UTRacerX9]

Think of its this way.

If I walk around saying "I'm a lawyer" who cares.

If I say "I'm a lawyer" and get you to pay me for legal advice. Thats fraud.


One is free speach, one it illegal. Its really a case of we don't need laws for this.

Its like the guy from AGT that claimed more service/injuries than he had. He failed on the show and now his name is mud. He'll never have a chance at a carear as a muscician because he just trashed his reputation. But, should he go to jail for that too?

Bingo.

[IPD]

so where's the line on that, alan? what form or amount of compensation must be sufficient for the act of misrepresentation to be criminal? a round of applause? a free drink? someone that sleeps with you? financial kickbacks? a job? VA benefits? where exactly do you draw that line?

i submit that at no time should it be considered "legal" to misrepresent oneself in terms of military service. from my perspective, free-speech ends when the rights of another are infringed upon. that infringement is precisely what happens each time someone misrepresents himself in ways that involve the military--it damages the reputations of those who have served admirably.

to me, it's one thing for a person to fib about being in the military. it's another if that person tries to claim medals/awards not bestowed upon them. the latter cheapen the meaning of those awards/medals for the members who have justly earned them. that is sufficient damage, in my eyes, to invalidate the "freedom of speech" argument.

[NickS VR4]

We are already losing freedoms, speech should not be one of them.

If we can't have such a basic right of saying what we want, even if its a lie, what other rights can we expect to lose.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[BaadVR4]

In any instance of "under oath", lying is just that: CRIMINAL. The technical term is perjury. I submit there are instances in which the technicality of not being under oath does NOT bestow legality on lying for gain. And claiming medals of valor falsely is one of those instances.

If we, as a country, can take Roger Clemens to trial, not once, but twice over something as inconsequential and harmless as lying to Congress about whether or not he used performance enhancing substances, how the HELL do we consider lying about receiving the MEDAL OF HONOR protected "free speech"?

So does lying, should that be a crime?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[IPD]

We are already losing freedoms, speech should not be one of them.

If we can't have such a basic right of saying what we want, even if its a lie, what other rights can we expect to lose.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

we're already not allowed to lie in all instances. like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. you're deluding yourself if you think that we're allowed to lie outside of oath anytime we please.

[NickS VR4]

we're already not allowed to lie in all instances. like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. you're deluding yourself if you think that we're allowed to lie outside of oath anytime we please.

I am very aware of that, and I eluded to that in my first post. Speech that can cause harm to people is not protected. Any speech that incites violence is also not protected.

Lying in general is not in the same category. This type of lie is no different than if I said I owned a Ferrari on this forum or claimed I earned $500k/yr.

Cause really I own a Bugatti Veyron, and I earn $5 million a year.



Shit.... did I just break a law?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2