View Full Version : Free Speech or Crime???
So lying should be covered under the first ammendment huh? Should be interesting to see how this one turns out:rolleyes:
Law Against Lying About Medals Challenged on Free Speech Grounds
Lawyers in two cases have made similar arguments against the Stolen Valor Act, saying that lying is protected by the First Amendment unless it does real harm
DENVER -- A federal law against lying about military medals is facing First Amendment challenges in Colorado and California.
Lawyers in both cases have made similar arguments against the Stolen Valor Act, saying that lying is protected by the First Amendment unless it does real harm.
In California, a judge rejected a motion to dismiss a charge against Xavier Alvarez of falsely claiming he received the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military decoration. Alvarez is appealing on free speech grounds.
In Colorado, Richard Glen Strandlof is awaiting trial on charges of falsely claiming he received a Purple Heart and Silver Star.
He pleaded not guilty. The judge hasn't ruled on motions raising the free speech argument.
In my opinion:
Stolen Valor Act of 2006
http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/laws/109/publ437.109.pdf
The argument re: freedom of speech to protect the misrepresentation of the receipt of an award under the First Amendment is not IMO valid. Were it considered to be protected under the First Amendment then wouldn't it also apply to a person claiming to be a doctor, or a member of Congress, or a judge, or a police officer? False representation of an award presented by the Congress or by a branch of the military should not be considered for protection under the "abridging the freedom of speech" provision articulated in the Amendment. On the other hand, it seems to me that the "outing" of an individual whom the facts prove did not receive such an award, was not awarded a particular military badge, etc, would (should) be protected under the provisions of the Amendment. That's my opinion.
The First Amendment:
Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
armymom1228
02-02-2010, 17:06
OH great...just give my ex more ammo to continue lying about me.. I can see it now... "that was a lie jerkwad, stop telling lies about me!" "Hey I was just exercising my freedom of speech rights." ... greeeeat... just spiffy. :eek::rolleyes::mad:
From a theological point of view, if the following is taken and understood as true: "The truth shall set you free", then lying implies restrained speech, and thus not free speech, therefore, the amendment rights of the accused have not been violated. Not sure if that's a totally sound argument for a legal trial.
armymom1228
02-02-2010, 22:50
From a theological point of view, if the following is taken and understood as true: "The truth shall set you free", then lying implies restrained speech, and thus not free speech, therefore, the amendment rights of the accused have not been violated. Not sure if that's a totally sound argument for a legal trial.
You must not have ever been married...try telling your wife that those jeans make her butt look big and then get back to me.:D
OTOH, that truth might very well set you free, of course you might be in traction when you recieve the divorce papers..
YMMV
Utah Bob
02-03-2010, 08:24
Strandlof again! That Goddamn POS!!:mad:
Slantwire
02-03-2010, 09:46
Libel and slander aren't protected free speech, are they? I don't see why this would be, either.
IMHO, there is damage. There is perceived value. If that was not the case, the person probably would not lie about it. To the listen of the lies, the character of the person lying reflects on the value of those medals. The lack of character lowers the perceived value of those medals. That means, it degrades those who actually where awarded them.
...try telling your wife that those jeans make her butt look big and then get back to me.
That, too, would be a lie...it has little to do with the jeans.
Must be some of that effin' shuh-ree-uh (rhymes with di-uh-ree-uh) law we've been hearing so much about in the blogosphere - I'm moving to Grover Falls, NH, where things don't change so quickly over in Polish Town.
Richard
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-military-medals-impostors,0,6987503.story
Stolen valor: US law that makes it a crime to lie about being a war hero is challenged
DAN ELLIOTT Associated Press Writer
February 6, 2010 | 9:36 a.m.
DENVER (AP) — The federal courts are wrestling with a question of both liberty and patriotism: Does the First Amendment right to free speech protect people who lie about being war heroes?
At issue is a three-year-old federal law called the Stolen Valor Act that makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to falsely claim to have received a medal from the U.S. military. It is a crime even if the liar makes no effort to profit from his stolen glory.
Attorneys in Colorado and California are challenging the law on behalf of two men charged, saying the First Amendment protects almost all speech that doesn't hurt someone else. Neither man has been accused by prosecutors of seeking financial gain for himself.
Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School who is not involved in the two cases, said the Stolen Valor Act raises serious constitutional questions because it in effect bans bragging or exaggerating about yourself.
"Half the pickup lines in bars across the country could be criminalized under that concept," he said.
Craig Missakian, a federal prosecutor in the California case, argued that deliberate lies are not protected. He also said the Constitution gives Congress the authority to raise and support an army, and that includes, by extension, "protecting the worth and value of these medals."
The Stolen Valor Act revised and toughened a law that forbids anyone to wear a military medal that was not earned. The revised measure sailed through Congress in late 2006, receiving unanimous approval in the Senate.
Dozens of people have been arrested under the law at a time when veterans coming home from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are being embraced as heroes. Many of the cases involve men who simply got caught living a lie without profiting from it. Virtually all the impostors were ordered to perform community service.
In one case, a man posing as a Marine war hero was accused of using his hero status to receive discount airline tickets and a free place to stay near Phoenix.
Defense attorneys say the law is problematic in the way it does not require the lie to be part of a scheme for gain. Turley said someone lying about having a medal to profit financially should instead be charged with fraud.
One of the men challenging the law is Xavier Alvarez of Pomona, Calif. He had just been elected to a water district board in 2007 when he said at a public meeting that he was a retired Marine who received the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military decoration.
His claim aroused suspicion, and he was indicted 2007. Alvarez, who apparently never served in the military, pleaded guilty on condition that he be allowed to appeal on the First Amendment question. He was sentenced to more than 400 hours of community service at a veterans hospital and fined $5,000. The case is now before a federal appeals court.
The other person challenging the law is Rick Glen Strandlof, who claimed he was an ex-Marine wounded in Iraq and received the Purple Heart and Silver Star. He founded an organization in Colorado Springs that helped homeless veterans.
Military officials said they had no record that he ever served. He has pleaded not guilty, and a judge is considering whether to throw out the charge.
The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin in California quoted Alvarez as saying in 2007, "I must have mis-said things. It wasn't supposed to go that way." Strandlof's lawyer has said his client may suffer from bipolar disorder or other problems.
Attorneys challenging the law say that lying about getting a medal doesn't fit any of the categories of speech that the U.S. Supreme Court has said can be banned: lewd, obscene, profane, libelous or creating imminent danger to others, such as yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Army veteran Pete Lemon of Colorado Springs, who received the Medal of Honor for turning back an enemy assault and rescuing wounded comrades in Vietnam while injured himself, supports the law, saying that pretending to have a medal can bring undeserved rewards.
"It gives you the power to entice somebody into marriage," he said. "It could give you the power to be able to join an organization, get special treatment with regards to getting tickets to a football game, getting license plates, getting preferential treatment in a job situation."
Doug Sterner, a military historian, said the law embodies the wishes of the nation's first commander in chief, George Washington. Sterner noted that Washington created the Purple Heart, the nation's first military decoration, and wrote: "Should any who are not entitled to these honors have the insolence to assume the badges of them, they shall be severely punished."
"I think that speaks to the intent of the framers," Sterner said, "that George Washington saw this kind of lie outside the scope of this freedom-of-speech issue."
doctom54
02-07-2010, 12:07
I almost agree with the first amendment issue.
There was a friend of mine who once was talking with a newspaper editor about flag burnings.
The editor said that flag burning was permitted under the "Freedom of Speech".
My friend replied, "Yes, however the Bill of Rights is to protect you from the government, not from me. If someone burns the flag in front of me I'll take them out."
My gut feeling is these guys (stolen valor a$$holes) should be handled at the local level by veterans and not let it become an issue for the courts.
The courts have enough to do.
greenberetTFS
02-07-2010, 12:50
I almost agree with the first amendment issue.
There was a friend of mine who once was talking with a newspaper editor about flag burnings.
The editor said that flag burning was permitted under the "Freedom of Speech".
My friend replied, "Yes, however the Bill of Rights is to protect you from the government, not from me. If someone burns the flag in front of me I'll take them out."
My gut feeling is these guys (stolen valor a$$holes) should be handled at the local level by veterans and not let it become an issue for the courts.
The courts have enough to do.
Excellent point Doc,I agree thoroughly................;)
Big Teddy :munchin
armymom1228
02-07-2010, 18:56
Excellent point Doc,I agree thoroughly................;)
Big Teddy :munchin
In this case, I think that the stocks should be reintroduced. A 'vet' found guilty of 'stolen valor' should be put on the courthouse steps in those stocks and every Vet in 50 miles notified of this persons crime and punishment. Of course the ACLU will probably file an injunction because it is a violation of the criminals rights to hurt his feelings by being pelted with rotten tomatoes and jeers, or some such nonsense.
I'll agree with doing away with the Stolen Valor Act, when they also remove impersonating a police officer/judge/elected official from the law books.
If a person is a known liar - how can he then swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...or to any other oath...and be believed or held to his word.
And if lying is a protected 'right' under the 1st Amendment - how can one then be threatened with punishment for commiting perjury - an impossibility under such reasoning.
Richard
craigepo
02-08-2010, 15:47
Richard
"And if lying is a protected 'right' under the 1st Amendment - how can one then be threatened with punishment for commiting perjury - an impossibility under such reasoning."
The distinction between perjury and lying is that perjury is generally committed while the speaker is under oath. This law is quite old, and probably dates back at least to the biblical commandment of "Thou shall not bear false witness".
This is an interesting argument. More to follow
Snaquebite
02-09-2010, 13:39
Was doing a little internet searching about this guy and ran across this picture of Alvarez. Wearing SF Tab and Cresthttp://claremontca.blogspot.com/2008/01/xavier-alvarez-redux.html
14555
Edited to add: Most of the news stories refer to Alvarez being convicted while claiming to be a former Marine.
Dozer523
02-09-2010, 13:58
Was doing a little internet searching about this guy and ran across this picture of Alvarez. Wearing SF Tab and Cresthttp://claremontca.blogspot.com/2008/01/xavier-alvarez-redux.html
14555
Edited to add: Most of the news stories refer to Alvarez being convicted while claiming to be a former Marine. you missed this "LEFT: Three Valleys Board Member Xavier Alvarez (Pomona) prepares to make war on common sense. Alvarez, self-awarded winner of multiple fictional military decorations, dons imaginary uniform in defense of hypothetical honor.
Alvarez is currently on leave to the Planet Earth from his native Zoltar, a distant Class-M world in the constellation Orion.
Snaquebite
02-09-2010, 14:08
YEah I did....