Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Stolen Valor Act ruled unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Stolen Valor Act ruled unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

08-18-2010 , 10:56 PM
Stolen Valor Act Ruled Unconstitutional by Circuit Court

Kind of unsure what to think of this one. As a servicemember my immediate reaction is one of dismay. I read a little of the reasoning and I understand the point the majority opinion is trying to make. But at the same time isnt historically true that false statements are not in fact worthy of 1st amendment protection?

Any of you legal beagles feel free to weigh in. Definitely trying to be open-minded about this but I have to say my visceral reaction is pretty strong when I think about the members out there that have sacrificed life and limb during their military service and it just seems like spitting in their face to me.
08-18-2010 , 11:25 PM
Left Wing activist judges ldo....
08-18-2010 , 11:25 PM
Law certainly seems unconstitutional to me. But I'm not a lawyer, I just occassionally play one on the internet.
08-18-2010 , 11:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The 13th 4postle
Left Wing activist judges ldo....
Please expand on that. Im not sure if you are being snarky or actually think this or what?
08-18-2010 , 11:29 PM
What makes this law any more valid than a law prohibiting all lying?
08-18-2010 , 11:29 PM
from the article

Quote:
All three judges were nominated by Republican presidents.
08-18-2010 , 11:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vulturesrow
Please expand on that. Im not sure if you are being snarky or actually think this or what?
Just being snarky...

On a serious note, I agree with you. I don't think people should be allowed to pretend to have gotten medals that they haven't earned. You can't pretend to be a police officer or officer in the military without getting into trouble.
08-18-2010 , 11:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by USC Cheats
What makes this law any more valid than a law prohibiting all lying?
We have laws in most jurisdictions against impersonating a police officer. While its not an exactly analogous situation, the fact that such laws are on the books leads me to believe that it is Constitutional to engage in this sort of line drawing with regards to false speech.
08-18-2010 , 11:39 PM
Well, there is a huge safety risk there (in conlaw speak, a compelling state interest). Not so in the case of this law.
08-18-2010 , 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelchyBeau
from the article


Quote:
But the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit begs to differ. In a decision released on Tuesday, the three-judge panel, based in San Francisco, declared the law unconstitutional because it infringed on the defendant’s freedom of speech, even if it was false. That defendant, Xavier Alvarez, had claimed to be a Marine and a winner of the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award. He was neither.
hmmm....
08-18-2010 , 11:41 PM
I think the closest standard to this type of law is libel/slander. In libel/slander the standard is actual malice. The guy had no malice.

Reading the story the guy had made a bunch of stupid false statements.
08-18-2010 , 11:42 PM
san francisco is the new acorn
08-18-2010 , 11:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucky
I think the closest standard to this type of law is libel/slander. In libel/slander the standard is actual malice. The guy had no malice.

Reading the story the guy had made a bunch of stupid false statements.
not criminal offenses iirc
08-18-2010 , 11:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The 13th 4postle
hmmm....
two of the judges were appointed by W. Bush and 1 was appointed by H.W. Bush
08-18-2010 , 11:43 PM
Does the NHL have legal ground to sue him for falsely stating he played for the Red Wings?
08-18-2010 , 11:48 PM
As someone who received the Medal of Honor I stand by this decision.
08-18-2010 , 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autocratic
As someone who received the Medal of Honor I stand by this decision.
A+
08-18-2010 , 11:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelchyBeau
two of the judges were appointed by W. Bush and 1 was appointed by H.W. Bush
So was this guy.

08-19-2010 , 12:00 AM
ZOMG George H.W. Bush appointed a non-psycho who occasionally pissed off REAL CONSERVATIVES by supporting civil liberties!!! Benedict Arnold II imo
08-19-2010 , 12:16 AM
I was just making the point that judges being appointed by a republican president doesn't make them Conservative. Likewise, a judge residing in San Francisco doesn't necessarily make him Liberal.
08-19-2010 , 12:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by USC Cheats
not criminal offenses iirc
The problem is that the "criminal offense" was speech. fraud, impersonating an officer, and other potentially similar crimes are action crimes with definable victims. His speech was not a threat to public safety, so there is not really a comparable class of crimes.
08-19-2010 , 12:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The 13th 4postle
I was just making the point that judges being appointed by a republican president doesn't make them Conservative. Likewise, a judge residing in San Francisco doesn't necessarily make him Liberal.
Stereotypes save lots of time tho.
08-19-2010 , 01:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vulturesrow
Stolen Valor Act Ruled Unconstitutional by Circuit Court

Kind of unsure what to think of this one. As a servicemember my immediate reaction is one of dismay. I read a little of the reasoning and I understand the point the majority opinion is trying to make. But at the same time isnt historically true that false statements are not in fact worthy of 1st amendment protection?

Any of you legal beagles feel free to weigh in. Definitely trying to be open-minded about this but I have to say my visceral reaction is pretty strong when I think about the members out there that have sacrificed life and limb during their military service and it just seems like spitting in their face to me.
First let me thank you for your service to our fine country.

But now I must ask exactly how you or anyone is harmed when a liar claims to have won the CMH?
08-19-2010 , 01:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucky
The problem is that the "criminal offense" was speech. fraud, impersonating an officer, and other potentially similar crimes are action crimes with definable victims. His speech was not a threat to public safety, so there is not really a comparable class of crimes.
Yeah, like, I get that impersonating a police officer could be argued to be "free speech," but used improperly, it can clearly cause measurable harm. Claiming you have a medal when you don't, well, it's hard to identify a victim unless you defraud someone, in which case you'd probably be nailed by fraud laws on the books already. Are awarded medals a matter of public record? I guess I would hope that I can just look up and see if someone has actually received a medal.

On balance, comparing the negligible infringement on free speech vs. the negligible harm on anyone else, I'd side with free speech, esp. if medals are an easily verifiable public record.
08-19-2010 , 01:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
First let me thank you for your service to our fine country.

But now I must ask exactly how you or anyone is harmed when a liar claims to have won the CMH?
Cheapens the chances of a real CMH winners picking up chicks in bars, imo.

Personally, I say let people lie about recieving medals they didn't win, but make it legal for individuals who have actually recieved those medals to challenge those dirty liars to honor duels to the death without repurcussion. Weapons chosen by the challenger, of course.

Also, put it on pay-per-view and use some of that revenue to go to fallen and wounded soldiers and their families.

      
m