Supreme Court strikes down Stolen Valor Act for military medals

[Eugene]

Source: Los Angeles Times

June 28, 2012 | 7:30 am

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the Stolen Valor Act, which made it a crime to lie about receiving military medals.

By a 6-3 decision, the high court said the right to lie about medals and military service, while unattractive, is protected by the 1st Amendment.

The decision came in the case of Xavier Alvarez, a former member of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in Southern California. Alvarez had claimed he was a former Marine and recipient of the Medal of Honor; in fact, he had never served in the military.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-stolen-valor-law-.html

[bluedigger]

1. Back to the Supreme Court I hate.

I can see this law was problematic, but it is a heinous act.

[Taverner]

2. But in the end it is a freedom of speech issue

And not the same as saying "I am a law enforcement officer"

[Bucky]

14. But it is, categorically, an act of fraud. People use this misrepresentation to make money.

They're selling something or they're getting jobs using fraudulent information about themselves. Why isn't a service medal considered the same as an affidavit of public commendation, the same as, say, a law degree or a doctor's certificate?

[spooky3]

16. I agree with you. I guess I need to make time to read the decision to understand the Js' reasoning.

[Bucky]

19. Oh, I agree. I defer to Scotus's decision. It just confuses me.

They know the law and I don't. That said, it was a law whose intentions, at least, I sympathized with.

[Eric J in MN]

17. The law wasn't limited to commercial fraud.

Someone who lies about medals to make a commercial deal may be eligible for punishment under prior laws against fraud.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

26. If they use the medals for monetary gain they are subject to fraud laws.

This stupid law isn't needed to prevent that.

What's next? A law demanding french fries are called "Freedom Fries"?

Claiming to have a law degree may or may not be against the law (absent fraud) as obtaining a J.D. doesn't mean anything the the state until you get your license. Same thing for medical school versus a licensed M.D.

[Taverner]

33. At that point, it's already fraud, and doesn't need this law

Existing fraud laws should get the same result

[clang1]

20. The Wearing of Military Medals and Awards by People that have not EARNED

Last edited Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:51 PM - Edit history (7)

them is NOT FREEDOM of SPEECH... IT IS AN ACT OF COWARDICE. THE COURT HAS CHEAPENED EVERYONE WITH THIS DECISION.

IN MY EYES, ALL IT DOES IT LEGITIMIZE COWARDICE. IT ONLY DIMINISHES WHAT IT MEANS TO SERVE AND IS AN INSULT TO THE PEOPLE OF THE MILITARY AND TO THE CITIZENS.

WE HAVE A PROFESSIONAL ARMY IN AMERICA, NOT A CONSCRIPT ONE. AND THIS IS COWARDICE AND IT IS INSULTING. UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FREE SPEECH AND THIS INSULT. IT IS NOT FREE SPEECH. BUT IT IS THE CHATTER OF COWARDS EVERYWHERE AND IT DEMEANS DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM.

IN THE END, THIS ONLY CHEAPENS OUR SOCIETY AND THE MILITARY AND IT IS INSULTING TO EVERYONE. SEE THIS, RECOGNIZE IT FOR WHAT IT DOES.















Meanwhile....The Progression continues....

[Taverner]

32. Dude - calm the all caps YOU DON'T LIKE PEOPLE SCREAMING AT YOU DO YOU??????

Yes I agree it's cowardice, so is saying you saved orphans in the Congo if you didn't

But both are protected speech

[MADem]

45. All CAPS doesn't help you make your point. It just makes people ignore your point. nt

[bowens43]

5. FREE SPEECH

[permatex]

31. I agree

I was awarded my medals honestly and have nothing but contempt for the poseurs who lie about their military service, but it is a matter of free speech, now if they are found out to be fakes and liars by real combat vets and get the shit kicked out of them, well, too bad for them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. You may not like the list of judges who wanted to keep the act

Alito, Scalia and Thomas: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/06/28/4065368/supreme-court-strikes-down-stolen.html

I think it is a valid 1st Amendment issue.

[1monster]

23. From that article:

Alito, in writing the dissent, said that "false statements of fact merit no First Amendment protection in their own right."

I wonder what his ruling would have been regarding, say, Fox News making false statements? Didn't something like that already happen? Wasn't it ruled that news agencies have no requiement not to lie?

Regarding the ruling: I stand with the court on this one. It should be treated as any other lie as long as it is not used for purposes of fraud. Eventually, those lying about such honors will be found out and the embarrassment factors will be incredibly high.

[clang1]

40. re: False statements of fact merit no First Amendment protection in their own right

Last edited Thu Jun 28, 2012, 11:30 PM - Edit history (4)

Alito, in writing the dissent, said that "false statements of fact merit no First Amendment protection in their own right."


I am ASTOUNDED that He SAID this. So that means I NEED to THINK about what he is saying....I am Pretty Amazed.


WHAT I SEE THEN IS: WHO DEFINES WHAT IS TRUE AND WHAT IS NOT.

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. It sort of makes sense to my why he would write this then. I can SEE with my own two Eyes what he is. So this is worrisome to me, and not surprising either. So now consider the names of who supports what.


The question as I see it, Who defines the Truth then? SMELL the FLOWERS.

Who are some of the people trying to re-write History right now? Consider that....As well consider who their friends are...Just consider what they DO. This real thought behind this opinion, in my judgement is: They are saying THEY define Truth.

They are trying to re-write History even, Use your own eyes to see...

[Igel]

42. That wouldn't have been the point.

If Fox lied and there was no law against it, there's no law against it. If Joe V. lied and said he had the Medal of Freedom and there was a law against it, there's a law against it.

There are limits to 1st amendment protections. It's a slippery slope as to where to draw the line and say, "This far and no farther.". SCOTUS drew the line before we get to banning false claims about military medals. Alito wouldn't have.

(Of course, by some standards this--or overturning any law Congress passes--is judicial activism. This just shows that the term has too many meanings to be used without providing some clue as to its definition in context.)

[yardwork]

35. Figures. Those three wouldn't know the Bill of Rights if they tripped over it.

All they've got is protecting propaganda and corporate interests.

[naaman fletcher]

44. I agree with the court 100%. nt

[Pab Sungenis]

3. What was the vote breakdown?

Anyone have it?

[kirby]

9. 6-3

Alito led the dissent, Scalia, and Thomas joined.

[Pab Sungenis]

11. If Alito read the dissent

then Scalia and Thomas probably joined him.

The motives were laudable, the law was not.

[kirby]

12. Correct... Edited my post. n/t

[clang1]

28. EVEN A BROKEN CLOCK IS RIGHT TWICE A DAY

Last edited Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:34 PM - Edit history (2)

ANY CLOCK IS...













Meanwhile....The Progression continues.....

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Not if it's digital, it isn't.

[Ter]

52. Conservatives must be mad

Occasionally Roberts and Kennedy side with the liberals, but none of the more liberal 5 ever side with the conservatives. Much more consistency.

[onenote]

53. That's not really the case.

First, there are quite a few decisions that are unanimous.

Second, the way the justices line up in particular cases varies all over the lot. For example, in just the past few weeks the following decisions were handed down:

Reichle v. Howards: Thomas wrote the opinion that was joined not only by Roberts Scalia Alito and Kennedy, but also by Sotomayor.
Ginsburg and Breyer wrote a separate opinion (Kagan didn't participate).

Elgin v. Dept. of Treasury: Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy were joined in an opinion by Sotomayor and Breyer. Alito, Ginbsburg, and Kagan dissented.

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo: Sotomayor and Kagan sided with Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy. Roberts and Alito were joined by Ginsburg and Breyer in dissent.

[bowens43]

4. Two great decisions on a single day!!!

what's up with that?

[Harmony Blue]

13. Yeah they are on a roll all of sudden

More good things to come?

[NYC Liberal]

25. The word is Roberts knows people are none too happy with SCOTUS

and its credibility is at a low point. He wants to remedy that.

Who knows though.

[VWolf]

7. Lying about medals is more than unattractive. It's heinous.

But I agree with this decision.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. Good. The "Stolen Valor Act" was fucking stupid and unconstitutional beyond description

Propaganda codified as law.

[Posteritatis]

55. And that's before even getting into its name. Ugh. (nt)

[obamanut2012]

10. I agree with this

It's loathsome, but not a crime.

[Ken Burch]

15. Weird. Makes you wonder

Whether we need to re-check everything on THEIR resume's.

[Turbineguy]

18. Protecting republicans?

[Maineman]

21. Bingo! Restricting the right to lie would seriously cramp Republicans and

Right Wing PACs.

[gopiscrap]

30. Exactly what I was thinking!!!

[Blasphemer]

22. Not that it wasn't clear before....

But Scalia, Thomas and Alito have no business being on the SCOTUS. This is pretty clear cut in terms of violating first amendment rights. So basically, your average Joe or Jane can't lie if it serves their interests (however morally bankrupt such lies may be) but a huge corporation can exercise unchecked free speech.

[onenote]

47. It was the right decision, but it was not a "clear cut" case.

Which is why even among the Justices that voted to strike down the law there was a split in the applicable legal rationale.

[magic59]

24. As FOX news and 8 years of George Bush has shown us

Its the right of every American to lie.

[shcrane71]

27. The SCOTUS: No law shall get in the way of Americans electing LIARS & FRAUDS. nt

[bluestateguy]

29. You can lie to your friends and neighbors or on an internet blog

But you are still prohibited from representing yourself as a military veteran on a job application form or applying for government programs.

[yardwork]

34. I agree with this decision. It is protected speech to lie about receiving medals.

Obnoxious and disrespectful, yes, but protected speech nonetheless.

[KatChatter]

36. As some one who have earned a few medals for my military service

I have no problem with it.

As many know many of the medals that are awarded are either give me's, like National Defense, Good Conduct, etc...or given out for BS reasons, we have all known the people involved and are laughing to yourself as they read what it is for. Some are actually deserved.

I look at it this way, a good friend died and I got a Purple Heart and Bronze Star to show for it. I would rather have my friend back then 2 medals that are worth less then $20 BTW.

So if people want to wear em in protest, go for it, you want to burn the flag, sure why not.

I would rather fight to protect the rights of a person to burn a flag and wear unearned medals then fight to protect corporate profits and their rights.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

37. But it would be illegal to lie about receiving medals

if you were under oath to tell the truth.

[russspeakeasy]

38. That should make johnnie happy..

[Tom Ripley]

41. You may now call me General Ripley

[KatChatter]

43. You best go with Lord High Supreme General of the Universe Ripley

less you be out ranked by being a common general.

[clang1]

46. Consider this then about Free Speech

PLEASE CONSIDER THIS. SEE IT AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT. CONSIDER WHAT THE CURRENT REALITY IS. AND WHAT IS HAPPENING.

Talkingpointsmemo: House GOPer Compares Health Care Ruling To 9/11
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125150300


Tyranny and Propaganda techniques

HEALTHCARE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11. PERIOD.

Propaganda techniques
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques


Big Lie The repeated articulation of a complex of events that justify subsequent action. The descriptions of these events have elements of truth, and the "big lie" generalizations merge and eventually supplant the public's accurate perception of the underlying events. After World War I the German Stab in the back explanation of the cause of their defeat became a justification for Nazi re-militarization and revanchist aggression.

Disinformation The creation or deletion of information from public records, in the purpose of making a false record of an event or the actions of a person or organization, including outright forgery of photographs, motion pictures, broadcasts, and sound recordings as well as printed documents.

Labeling A Euphemism is used when the propagandist attempts to increase the perceived quality, credibility, or credence of a particular ideal. A Dysphemism is used when the intent of the propagandist is to discredit, diminish the perceived quality, or hurt the perceived righteousness of the Mark. By creating a 'label' or 'category' or 'faction' of a population, it is much easier to make an example of these larger bodies, because they can uplift or defame the Mark without actually incurring legal-defamation. Example: "Liberal" is a dysphamsim intended to diminish the perceived credibility of a particular Mark. By taking a displeasing argument presented by a Mark, the propagandist can quote that person, and then attack 'liberals' in an attempt to both (1) create a political battle-ax of unaccountable aggression and (2) diminish the quality of the Mark. If the propagandist uses the label on too-many perceivably credible individuals, muddying up the word can be done by broadcasting bad-examples of 'liberals' into the media. Labeling can be thought of as a sub-set of Guilt by association, another Logical Fallacy.

....


Theater of the OUTRAGEOUS is all this is...Just like bad Propaganda usually is..This is Deception... Uneducated people WILL Believe this...THAT IS FACT. AND It is WRONG to EVEN SAY THIS.

Peaople should call it what it is and know to recognize it. In NEARLY ANY other country in the World, a Politican that does not understand 9-11 has NOTHING to do with HEALTHCARE would no longer be in Politics. It is absurd. THIS SORT OF POLITIC IS NOT THE POLITIC OF GOOD DEMOCRACY. PERIOD. IT IS DESIGNED TO DECEIVE PEOPLE. NOTHING MORE. IT IS PROPAGANDA, NOT POLITICS. IT IS ALSO DISRESPECTFUL.....THINK ABOUT WHY SOMEONE WOULD EVEN SAY THIS AND WHAT HE IS SAYING.


SINCE WE DISCUSS HEALTHCARE
THIS IS ALSO A PART OF THE REASON WHY SOME PEOPLE IN AMERICA DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT METH IS NOT WORSE THAN POT.
IT IS DISINFORMATION AND MISINFORMATION....PERIOD. IT IS DECEPTION. IT IS ALL PROPAGANDA. IT IS CORROSIVE TO THE SOCIAL FABRIC OF THE COUNTRY, EVEN CORROSIVE TO OTHER COUNTRIES BECAUSE OF WHAT IT MAKES PEOPLE THINK. IT IS PROPAGANDA. IT DECEIVES.

ANOTHER RESULT OF THIS IS THAT OTHERS IN THE WORLD THEN THINK THAT WE ARE ALL CRAZY WHEN THEY HERE THIS... WE ARE NOT...PERIOD. IT IS JUST MAYHEM OF THE MIND THAT COMES FROM THIS. SO THE WORLD SAYS AMERICANS MUST BE CRAZY. AND WE ARE NOT. PEOPLE ARE BEING DECEIVED. THIS IS ALL KNOWN FACT. BECAUSE THEY DO CALL US CRAZY, AND IT IS BECAUSE OF THINGS LIKE THIS. PEOPLE SAY SO. BECAUSE THEY SEE IT. PROPAGANDA OF DECEPTION.




NONE OF THIS IS FREE SPEECH EITHER..... EVEN THE OTHER SIDE SAYS FALSE INFORMATION IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE 1ST AMENDMENT.... PEOPLE HAD BETTER LOOK AT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE OTHER SIDE....THEY SAY WHAT THEY DO NOT BECUASE THEY SUPPORT THE 1ST AMENDMENT, THEY SAY IT BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT HE WHO DEFINES TRUTH THEN SAYS WHAT IS FREE SPEECH OR NOT....PEOPLE HAD BETTER HEED THIS.







PUT THE PICTURE TOGETHER PEOPLE. CONSIDER EVERYTHING. EVERY SINGLE THING. THINK OF ALL POSSIBILITIES.


EVERYTHING ALWAYS LEADS BACK TO WHAT IT TRULY IS. THAT IS THE WAY TRUTH WORKS AND IT IS THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS NATURALLY.

ONLY MAN MAKES THIS NOT TRUE. --WHEN HE LIES ABOUT THIS WORLD. THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF PROPAGANDA.


WHAT YOU THINK WILL NOT HAPPEN WILL HAPPEN. THEY ARE WORKING VERY HARD TO MAKE IT ALL HAPPEN. SEE IT.



WITH PROPAGANDA AND LIES, EVERYTHING LINKS BACK TOGETHER. IT IS WHAT IT IS. IT DOES NOT LEAD TO TRUTH. THAT IS NOT ITS PURPOSE.








Meanwhile....The Progression continues.....

[COLGATE4]

51. You can call it propaganda

you can call it a lie. You can call it applesauce for all I care. But the First Amendment is crystal clear that, with some extremely limited circumstances you are free to say what you like and lie if you will. (This is one of the reasons Fox "News" is still on the air). You may not like it, but the remedy for abominable speech is more speech, not trying to criminalize the speaker. That's our law.

[KBlagburn]

48. As a veteran........

I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.

[happyslug]

49. Here is the actual Court Opinion

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf

[yellowcanine]

50. How is it lying about medals different from Scalia pretending to be a SCOTUS judge?

[Posteritatis]

54. The First Amendment includes the right to be an asshole. It's simple enough to me.

People stupid enough to claim the Medal of Honor or the Victoria Cross (which takes even greater stupidity to try) get called out on enough to completely discredit themselves before the words finish leaving their mouth anyway.