Surf n Turf
01-08-2011, 22:11
Virginia District Court Finds Stolen Valor Act Constitutional
District Judge James Jones, ruling in the Western District of Virginia, Big Stone Gap Division ruled that the SVA is constitutional.
Preventing individuals from wearing honors they did not earn furthers a substantial government interest in honoring specified members of the military and preserving the respect and novelty of legitimate military decorations. The statute’s purpose is not related to the suppression of free speech, and incidental restrictions on freedom are no greater than is essential for the furtherance of that purpose.
One of the recognized categories involves falsity. While “there is no such thing as a false idea” undeserving of protection, [Gertz] “there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact.”
Although the declaration in Gertz was made without citation and was recognized as dicta by the Supreme Court in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. since Gertz, the assertion that false statements of fact are not protected has been repeated and relied upon and is now the prevailing understanding of the law.
On the other hand, despite the assertion in Gertz that false statements are valueless, the Court did not intend to exclude all false statements from the protection of the First Amendment: “Although the erroneous statement of fact is not worthy of constitutional protection, it is nevertheless inevitable in free debate.” Gertz. “The First Amendment requires that we protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters.” Id. at 341. Therefore, Gertz stands for the proposition that false statements of fact are generally unprotected, but some speech — “speech that matters” — is protected. For these reasons, the relevant rule in this case is that false statements of fact are generally unprotected, aside from the protection for “speech that matters.”
http://bigpeace.com/mseavey/2011/01/08/virginia-district-court-finds-stolen-valor-act-constitutional/
District Judge James Jones, ruling in the Western District of Virginia, Big Stone Gap Division ruled that the SVA is constitutional.
Preventing individuals from wearing honors they did not earn furthers a substantial government interest in honoring specified members of the military and preserving the respect and novelty of legitimate military decorations. The statute’s purpose is not related to the suppression of free speech, and incidental restrictions on freedom are no greater than is essential for the furtherance of that purpose.
One of the recognized categories involves falsity. While “there is no such thing as a false idea” undeserving of protection, [Gertz] “there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact.”
Although the declaration in Gertz was made without citation and was recognized as dicta by the Supreme Court in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. since Gertz, the assertion that false statements of fact are not protected has been repeated and relied upon and is now the prevailing understanding of the law.
On the other hand, despite the assertion in Gertz that false statements are valueless, the Court did not intend to exclude all false statements from the protection of the First Amendment: “Although the erroneous statement of fact is not worthy of constitutional protection, it is nevertheless inevitable in free debate.” Gertz. “The First Amendment requires that we protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters.” Id. at 341. Therefore, Gertz stands for the proposition that false statements of fact are generally unprotected, but some speech — “speech that matters” — is protected. For these reasons, the relevant rule in this case is that false statements of fact are generally unprotected, aside from the protection for “speech that matters.”
http://bigpeace.com/mseavey/2011/01/08/virginia-district-court-finds-stolen-valor-act-constitutional/