Freedom of speech over rides Stolen Valor act ...Are you kidding me?????.....

Fortunately for liberty, the Ninth Circuit is more often than not reversed on appeal to the Supremes....at least before Elena and Sonia took their perches there.

The dedicated valor thieves will anyway wish they had been merely prosecuted after an ad hoc committee of SEALs or Rangers or Recon Marines, etc., help them get their minds right. After all, the correctives administered to faux SEALs by the real ones are really, when all is said and done, a form of protected speech. If not, it should be.

I'm not allowed to wear my dress blues (as if I could button them) since I never saw the elephant. But I wonder if some gyrene corrections committee would let me join them on unofficial patrol. In civvies. Originally Posted by Don T. Lukbak

Actually, the Supreme Court almost never overrules any court, and the 9th is one of the least often overturned courts in the land. Very few cases make it to a writ, so the Supreme Court here's a miniscule number of cases vs. the caseload of each of the Circuits. When the SC hears a case, the usual reason is to overturn a portion of the law. Of course, different circuits have different rates. In 2004-2005, the 1st, 2nd, and 10th had every case that went to the SC overturned. Still a miniscule number of cases, but is sure makes those so called "activist judges" look bad when you put it that way.

Freedom of speech is, and should be, absolute. There is no way to misinterpret "Congress shall make no law..."

This is along the lines of those protesters who show up at the funerals of fallen, gay soldiers and harass the funeral. While dishonorable, it is protected, and recently laws passed to prohibit such actions were declared unconstitutional.

Going by the letter of the wording in the First Amendment any law of any kind governing speech should be unconstitutional.

Welll...first things first. The idea that the constitution would trump a law is 100% the point. The constitution sets boundaries on what laws are allowed to be enacted.

Then there is interpretation. I THINK the intent of this amendment was to protect "speech" as defined as expressing a belief, opinion or position however unpopular. This would of course include "the government sucks" as a leading candidate.

It is probably fair to say that there is a point where "speech" transitions to "actions via words" and was no longer intended to protected. Like, "that's not rat poision, it is candy, have some it is delicious" or "I'm a police officer, turn around, put your hands on the roof of the car and drop you pants". OK yes those are "speech" but in this case speech is the mechanism to an action.

So personally, I don't think someone decieving someone else into beleiving they are a veteran, almost always in order to achieve some personal gain, is protected by the constitution. In fact I think I could conclude that no conscious and willful deception fails to rise beyond speech to "action" that is not protected.

But it is gray for sure and we should err on the side of protection. Like if someone has a sign that says "Barack Obama is a Muslim", that may be a legitimate belief...this person may think all of the evidence to the contrary is simply a deception and they are going with their gut and should be protected. If someone says "I am a decorated war veteran" there's really no room for confusion.

Despite assertions to the contrary, the Constitution has never been read as being absolute in regard to speech. For example, even when the Constitution was initially drafted, it was punishable by death to commit treason - and that included telling the enemy information about troops, etc. That type of conduct was "speech" and yet the framers of the Constitution understood that the freedom of speech was not "absolute."

You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. You cannot use speech to incite riots. You cannot make false reports to the police. You cannot stand out at midnight and scream obscenities. There are many, many exceptions to the concept of "freedom of speech." I would argue that there is harm by the false assertion of claiming to possess a medal of honor. If everyone claimed it, it minimizes the importance of it, thus demeaning those who really hold it. In the same way, if everyone printed their own dollar bills, actual dollar bills would lose their value.

For those who claim we are losing out "rights," I would suggest a dose of reality. We still live in the freest country on earth. Where else do you claim you have more freedom? Remember, freedom is not just the right to do things, but also the existence of protections. For example, is a lawless country truly free? Would you want to live in Iraq or Somalia? Would you feel free there? On the flip side, how about China? Saudia Arabia? Iran? Russia? India? Please, tell me where freedom and security are protected as fairly as they are in this country?

I am sorry, but sometimes I think we lose perspective.

Since the MOH and other such valor awards (civilian as well) are deemed by the government, issued by the government, and until now, protected by the government... isn't there a possible angle of reasoning that to misrepresent that is, in fact, slandering the government? Is there no protection against misrepresentation of government actions and decisions?

Nope. There is "no protection against misrepresentation of government actions and decisions". That's exactly what the 1st was designed for. To protect your right to think and say what you want about the government. Why would a bunch of people who just fought a war against the most powerful nation on the planet to escape a tyrant leave a clause saying the rulers can't be spoken against for their actions?

It's real simple... Congress shall make no law. Self explanatory. And there's certainly no reason that making up winning an award should be a crime. That's life.

Here's a simple rule of thumb... any time you say or hear, "there ought to be a law"... there probably oughtn't be.

Laws are not the solution to the ills of society and certainly not any law that abridges one of the cornerstones of our republic over this ridiculous concept. Lying about having an MOH, an MD, a CPA, a whatever the fuck you want to lie about makes you a piece of shit... it doesn't (and shouldn't) make you a criminal.

Our nation has become so quick to criminalize people it's ridiculous - criminalization / imprisonment are meant for the harshest of crimes, not the ones that simply offend.

I guess we're just struggling to compensate loss of social respect with litigation. Can't criminalize a douche bag for being a douche bag.

I agree that it is a despicable act for one to lie about being a Medal of Honor recipient. By the same token, it is not against the law to lie, unless you are under oath! (Ask Roger Clemens)

Questions: What constitutes a little white lie being acceptable behavior?
When is it not?
What is the dividing line?

What might be an acceptable threshold for a lie to one person, might be totally unacceptable to another. Get my drift?

As was mentioned earlier, it is a slippery slope but the law is, what it is! We are in fact, a nation of laws. Some good! Some bad! But these laws do help protect the freedom we enjoy! In this particular instance. the irony is that many MOH winners have sacrificed their lives so that we could contintue to enjoy that freedom!

I agree that it is a despicable act for one to lie about being a Medal of Honor recipient. By the same token, it is not against the law to lie, unless you are under oath! (Ask Roger Clemens)

Questions: What constitutes a little white lie being acceptable behavior?
When is it not?
What is the dividing line?

What might be an acceptable threshold for a lie to one person, might be totally unacceptable to another. Get my drift?

As was mentioned earlier, it is a slippery slope but the law is, what it is! We are in fact, a nation of laws. Some good! Some bad! But these laws do help protect the freedom we enjoy! In this particular instance. the irony is that many MOH winners have sacrificed their lives so that we could contintue to enjoy that freedom! Originally Posted by bigtex

I suppose that's why theu are called "Judges" and not "Readers" :-)

Lying about having an MOH, an MD, a CPA, a whatever the fuck you want to lie about makes you a piece of shit... it doesn't (and shouldn't) make you a criminal. Originally Posted by AustinBusinessTraveler

That pretty much sums it there.

I suppose that's why theu are called "Judges" and not "Readers" :-) Originally Posted by irishlad

They are also not called "Lawmakers" for a reason. Too many of them forget that...

As a former medal winner in the army, I find it despicable what this guy did. But the point many here make is true...the less restrictions on FOS the better. But it is also true that it is not absolute.
I wish we would bring back public shaming. We need to publicly disclose what a douche bag this guy is. Which is happening now. But to make it illegal is a very scary thing.

One point, is it illegal to claim on resumes you worked for federal agencies? Making representations w/ regard to the gov't is tricky. That is where this may get overturned. But if that is the case, half the vets I know would be guilty because of "war story" inflation.

But again, I worry about the slippery slope. I despise this guy for doing this but I fear more gov't enforcing more laws. But I am all for society enforcing it and if he ever gets a job above min wage, that says more about us than anything