OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Bullwinkle58 -> OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/28/2012 10:56:29 PM)
Offered purely as a service to forumites with interest. No further comment will be made by this OP. Today, when the decision on the ACA dominated the news, the US Supreme Court also ruled in the Alvarez case on the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act, the subject of a recent thread here. The SVA was found to be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. The decision can be read at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf From the syllabus of the decision: ". . . (b) The Act seeks to control and suppress all false statements on this one subject in almost limitless times and settings without regardto whether the lie was made for the purpose of material gain. Permitting the Government to decree this speech to be a criminal offensewould endorse government authority to compile a list of subjects about which false statements are punishable. That governmental power has no clear limiting principle. Pp. 10−11. (c) The Court applies the “most exacting scrutiny” in assessing content-based restrictions on protected speech. Turner Broadcasting System Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 642. The Act does not satisfy that scrutiny. While 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 byfalse 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 protectedspeech, 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 militaryawards system by creating a database of Medal winners accessibleand searchable on the Internet, as some private individuals have already done. Pp. 12−18. . . . . . . KENNEDY, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which KAGAN, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined."

AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/28/2012 11:13:01 PM)
Freedom of speach , which may NOT be practiced by those on active military service , has been preserved for those who would most disgrace us with it's use. It may be a victory for freedom, but for some reason I feel very, very sick to my stomach. [:(]

jetjockey -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/28/2012 11:56:52 PM)
Today shall be remembered as a very sad day. This ruling does not protect Free Speech, only some free speech.

oldman45 -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/29/2012 12:16:06 AM)
I needed a shower after I read it on line.

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/29/2012 3:42:17 AM)
a free man speaks a servant obeys

witpqs -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/29/2012 4:16:32 AM)
Considering the full day's rulings, Congress could just pass a law that taxes such false speech.

geofflambert -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/29/2012 4:55:00 AM)
Libel laws here are so much weaker than in Britain, and I'm sure there's lots of good reasons for that, but I would posit that such lying bs harms real veterans and they should be able to sue such people for damages, regardless of whether a prosecutor can bring a criminal charge or not. edit: the prosecutor, being of sound mind and sympathetic to veterans who are typically very shy about talking about their service and often find even the memories of it extremely painful, while not being able to develop a case for prosecution, could make sure that there is iron clad evidence against the perp that will make it into court for said suits.

Canoerebel -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/29/2012 5:16:40 AM)
I haven't read this decision or any of the others, because I spent 25 years as a lawyer and three in law school, and I'm done reading things lawyer's write. However, I suspect that there are plenty of laws out there to curb most of the activity that would be truly harmful in committing fraud by holding out oneself [oops, that sounds like lawyer talk] to be a veteran or to have earned recognition (medals) when you hadn't. Fraud would cover anything done for gain. Perjury would cover others. People who misrepresent who they are a sad little puppies. Just like people who burn our flag. But as long as they aren't stealing anything doing it or otherwise committing criminal behavior, let them be sad little puppies. If they are stealing or committing a crime, there's laws out there to get 'em whether or not there's a Stolen Valor Act.

rockmedic109 -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/29/2012 7:09:19 AM)
An ex-partner of mine was arrested under the stolen valor act. I am not perfectly clear on the actual details but he obtained a decoration and then wrote up a citation. He put it on a wall at his home. He was a USMC veteran. His new wife/girlfriend looked at it and wanted to have something special done and contacted someone in the military for some reason which is how it came to light. A sad situation. I knew him well. His life was forever changed and he lost his new new dream job. I have not seen him since. I know that he did not ever use it for personal gain, but he still crossed the line. Unconstitutional or not, he has been punished. Punished enough? I cannot claim to know the answer and not having served in the military, I cannot in good conscience make that judgement. A very sad situation. The sheer embarrassment has to be enormous. I will always have fond memories of working with him. He was a great partner and I do not always extend that word to the people I work with. But he crossed the line and I could not support or defend him. There is no doubt in my mind that he would've performed with bravery if ever in the position where it was needed. While I cannot support or defend his action, I hope that he is able to get on with the rest of his life and I wish him the best.

treespider -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/29/2012 12:32:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel However, I suspect that there are plenty of laws out there to curb most of the activity that would be truly harmful in committing fraud by holding out oneself [oops, that sounds like lawyer talk] to be a veteran or to have earned recognition (medals) when you hadn't. Fraud would cover anything done for gain. Perjury would cover others. ... If they are stealing or committing a crime, there's laws out there to get 'em whether or not there's a Stolen Valor Act. I work with prosecutors daily. I believe one of the uses/intents/benefits (cannot think of the appropriate word) of the law would have been to give prosecutors a clearly defined violation with which they could pursue prosecution. Without the law, investigators are now forced to try and convince prosecutors to use legal theory in the application of the fraud statutes, the theory being that the misrepresentation somehow allowed the individual to benefit from their actions. In many cases I suspect the "benefit" is not direct and would be difficult to prove...which would result in a prosecutors reluctance to pursue charges. With the law the misrepresentation alone would have been the violation. In the case of perjury and/or false statements the individual would have been sworn and subsequently lied to the court or an agent of the government...the elements of which would make the case much easier to prove.

Hermit -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/29/2012 2:34:45 PM)
One hope remains. The decision was 6-3, but the two justices concurring left room open to switching sides if some changes were made. I'd encourage everyone to contact their Congressman to re-enact the legislation, adopting the changes suggested by Justice Breyer. That may result in a new case with a 5-4 opinion upholding the revised statute.

Historiker -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/29/2012 2:43:15 PM)
Do I get it right, that manufacture and sale of medals is forbidden as well? So if I want a medal of honor replica to have it at home with some other potentially bought medals - because maybe I am a collector - I am committing a crime in the US?

crsutton -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/29/2012 3:18:58 PM)
I personally don't have a problem with the decision. Medal or no, you can't steal valor from anyone. The law was not necessary.

USSAmerica -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/29/2012 3:32:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Historiker Do I get it right, that manufacture and sale of medals is forbidden as well? So if I want a medal of honor replica to have it at home with some other potentially bought medals - because maybe I am a collector - I am committing a crime in the US? I've not heard that before, but never tried to buy or make a medal. [:D]

USSAmerica -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/29/2012 3:34:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton I personally don't have a problem with the decision. Medal or no, you can't steal valor from anyone. The law was not necessary. I agree, cr. Seeing frauds like that does make me sick to my stomach, but that by itself is not against the law. If it were, there would be plenty more people in jail. [:D]

Califvol -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/29/2012 5:04:15 PM)
This was a case of an individual that ran for office (a local water district seat) that based their presentation to the public that they were a combat veteran that earned the MOH. The facts released to the public after the election were he did not earn the MOH, was NOT in combat, and never was in the military. The Stolen Valor Act was used to remove this filth from office. I would take an opposite position to the Court that there was no damage and hence no crime. There was plenty of damage when somebody gets elected to represent the people with a falsified combat recorded that was carefully presented part of the election process. This goes beyond puffery it was out and out defrauding the electorate. But that’s IMO, obviously SCOTUS has the only opinion on this issue that matters. Next, owing to the logic of this ruling the next time I read about anybody anywhere being a combat vet with honors I am forced to say- prove it. Show me you’re DD-214. Hell, at this rate somebody would think they could be on American Idol lying through their teeth about a combat record and awards. Last, oddly, lying about medals to get into office is a protected area of speech BUT telling the truth by holding a sign up to indicate there is a speed trap ahead is NOT protected speech; even though such act is being done as a protest: http://abcnews.go.com/US/speed-trap-sign-lands-texas-woman-jail/story?id=16670386

Sardaukar -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/29/2012 5:37:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Califvol This was a case of an individual that ran for office (a local water district seat) that based their presentation to the public that they were a combat veteran that earned the MOH. The facts released to the public after the election were he did not earn the MOH, was NOT in combat, and never was in the military. The Stolen Valor Act was used to remove this filth from office. I would take an opposite position to the Court that there was no damage and hence no crime. There was plenty of damage when somebody gets elected to represent the people with a falsified combat recorded that was carefully presented part of the election process. This goes beyond puffery it was out and out defrauding the electorate. But that’s IMO, obviously SCOTUS has the only opinion on this issue that matters. Next, owing to the logic of this ruling the next time I read about anybody anywhere being a combat vet with honors I am forced to say- prove it. Show me you’re DD-214. Hell, at this rate somebody would think they could be on American Idol lying through their teeth about a combat record and awards. Last, oddly, lying about medals to get into office is a protected area of speech BUT telling the truth by holding a sign up to indicate there is a speed trap ahead is NOT protected speech; even though such act is being done as a protest: http://abcnews.go.com/US/speed-trap-sign-lands-texas-woman-jail/story?id=16670386 +1 with this

mdiehl -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/29/2012 5:39:23 PM)
quote: I personally don't have a problem with the decision. Medal or no, you can't steal valor from anyone. The law was not necessary. Agree with that entirely.

Sardaukar -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/29/2012 5:49:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl quote: I personally don't have a problem with the decision. Medal or no, you can't steal valor from anyone. The law was not necessary. Agree with that entirely. While not USian or expert in law, that law seemed to be bit poorly made. Maybe someone will come up with better one. Still, decision is encouraging all sorts of frauds to advance themselves.

mdiehl -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/29/2012 6:13:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar While not USian or expert in law, that law seemed to be bit poorly made. Maybe someone will come up with better one. Still, decision is encouraging all sorts of frauds to advance themselves. I guess I'd say I share your distaste for the people who do it. But we're up to our necks in shady characters, on a global scale. I can think of 100 more pressing issues for the US Congress to deal with rather than muck around with limitations on liberties discussed in the Bill of Rights. Just my take on things. This is all of course highly political discussion, so I'll say no more.

Kwik E Mart -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/29/2012 6:55:02 PM)
...the jackweed that claimed to be a MOH winner and place himself in the company of legitimate MOH winners turns my stomach, and i'd probably be hard pressed not to b*tch slap him if he ever came across my path...OTOH, i agree that the act was poorly written and probably was unconstitutional regarding freedom of speech in its purest form...

CaptDave -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/29/2012 10:58:41 PM)
I believe the decision was the correct one. The guy who did this was a scumbag, of course, but that's not illegal. Besides, was everyone involved in his race for office -- including the opposition AND the voters -- too lazy to check up on his claim? That's not his fault! President Truman's father was fond of saying (and I paraphrase, since I don't remember the exact words) that the public will always recognize a liar, although in some cases it takes longer than others. When there are restrictions to free speech, I believe they must be based on the results of said speech. Hence the hackneyed example of crying "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. That can be interpreted as an incentive to panic, which is (or should be) illegal. If lying were illegal on the face of it, every politician in the country would be guilty (as well as anybody in the advertising industry, public relations flacks, and CEOs).

Lcp Purcell -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/30/2012 1:28:24 AM)
you know I work in theater, and this Act would have made it illegal to put on a play about Audry Murphy, or any other war hero. And you know I did not keep my fire watch medal from the Marines but one day I might want to go get a new one. And you know it's kind of funny/sad how many people I meet in bars that claim to have been a Marine scout sniper yet don't have the brand or even know what it is. ( by the way I was a 03-51 dragon gunner weapons company 1/1 we shared a squad bay with the scout snipers)

LST Express -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/30/2012 4:44:42 AM)
I tend to think that men who lie about things like this carry stuff around inside that is much more punishing to them in the long run than anything another man or law can do to them.

ChezDaJez -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/30/2012 8:12:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Historiker Do I get it right, that manufacture and sale of medals is forbidden as well? So if I want a medal of honor replica to have it at home with some other potentially bought medals - because maybe I am a collector - I am committing a crime in the US? You would be violating US law. The Medal of Honor is the only US medal that is specifically protected under federal law. A non-recipient may not own or possess a real or replica Medal of Honor. Possession and/or misuse of the medal is punishable by up to a $100,000 fine and 1 year in prison. Relatives of a Medal of Honor recipient who has passed away may possess the medal as long as they register it with the federals but actual ownership reverts back to the government. As far as the Stolen Valor Act goes, I wholeheartedly agree with its sentiments. I hope the government reenacts the law in a way so as to not violate the constitution. The men and women who earned their medals should be protected from those that would seek to use them for personal or professional gain. Without the law, I can foresee a time when the average citizen might not respect true medal winners because others have stepped forward to lay claim to that honor. The way I see it, the men who falsely claim medals are stealing the respect from those who truely earned it. And the perpetrators always do it for personal gain at the very least. By striking down this law, the Supreme Court has basically said that people can claim to be anything they want to be so long as they are not doing it for personal or professional gain. Does that mean I can claim to be a police officer so long as I don't try to enforce the law? Chez

Reg -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/30/2012 9:16:12 AM)
The law states "material gain" but what about the intangibles that these claims invoke with others - respect, influence, favors (both solicited and unsolicited), etc. It could also be argued that these are also benefits gained by deception. These intangibles could also be used to indirectly influence material decisions. I'm sure professional lobbyists are very used to skating that fine line.... As regards to replicas, I was talking to someone with defence medals and they were concerned at the quality of copies coming out of China, very concerned.....

DivePac88 -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/30/2012 10:24:15 AM)
Thing about lying about military service and decorations, is really an act of self-abdication. The Person who is lying is faking their reality, and condemning themselves to a sort of self-loathing. In the respect that their true reality is not good enough. They are also condemning themselves to be a slave to that lie, and will be tied to that fake from then on. This must be a very dark way to live a life, and would in my thinking, be a form of slow self-destruction. The the fool who thinks he is gaining honor from his fake, is more of a fool than he thinks, as in reality he is only fooling himself. Thats what I think anyway... As for the ruling; in New Zealand these rulings sort of go with the fashion current at the time, which in NZ at this time is sort of touchy-feely.

Q-Ball -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/30/2012 3:51:38 PM)
The tough thing about the Stolen Valor Act is that anyone who lies about this is an idiot, and worthy of comtempt. But the legal principal I think is pretty clear. It's too slippery a slope to be able to prosecute someone for saying they won a medal, if there is no material gain. Sure, they are stealing respect, I get that aspect.....but there are any number of ways to do that, through misleading speech, that are not illegal until they cross the same line as aiding fraud or material gain. I understand both sides, but I think the legal principal is clear. That doesn't defend the behavior, it just shouldn't be criminalized. I hope it's understood that I am not condoning this type of conduct at all. It's comtempable.

Canoerebel -> RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court (6/30/2012 3:53:55 PM)
And as for the pathetic candidates for public office who lie about their military status or achievements, surely the perjury laws would apply. I feel certain that any candidate has to file and sign under oath certain documents in order to qualify.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

7.125