Professional Soldiers ® - "Stolen Valor Act

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- General Discussions (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=46)

- - "Stolen Valor Act - Restricts Free Speech? (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16841)

"Stolen Valor Act - Restricts Free Speech?

Quote:

(01-04) 05:39 PST Los Angeles (AP) --

An elected official charged with falsely claiming he earned the military's highest honor has filed a motion to dismiss the federal case against him on free speech grounds.

The motion argues that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, under which water board member Xavier Alvarez was charged, is incompatible with the First Amendment because it restricts free speech by criminalizing false claims of military honors.

Alvarez, an elected representative to the Three Valleys Municipal Water District, said last year at a water district meeting that he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his deeds as a Marine.

After admitting he never served in the military, he was charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act. He pleaded not guilty to the misdemeanor charge.

Alvarez's lawyer Brianna J. Fuller argued in the motion to dismiss, which will be heard Jan. 14 in federal court, that "protecting the reputation of military decorations" is not a compelling enough reason to place "restrictions on false statements."

But government prosecutors said in their opposition submitted Wednesday that the First Amendment does not protect deliberate falsehoods.

Where else but Kalifornia....This will be interesting to watch.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...n053954S17.DTL

I would say Stolen Valor would fall under similar protection from "Free Speech" as Libel Laws.

Wow...he's got some brass ones. :rolleyes:

How can someone like that wake up in the morning, look in the Mirror. knowing their S#*t is weak.

Does that now mean that I have a first amendment right to pass myself off as a LEO when I am not?:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gypsy (Post 194561)

Wow...he's got some brass ones. :rolleyes:

They may appear to be "BIG BRASS ONES", but I'd wager that they are nothing more that BRASS PLATED X-MAS TREE BALLS!!! When he attempts to "Clang" them together, THEY WILL SHATTER!!!!:D:munchin

Friggin Dickweeds!!!

Later
Martin

Well great!

I will add my position as representative of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District to my resume tonight. :D

-Jerk-

I think the worst part of this is that he's trying to justify it. This O2 thief has no shame whatsoever. The only thing worse than a poser is a poser who tries to justify their actions using the Constitution.:mad: Disgusting...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambush Master (Post 194569)

:D What you said.

Will perjury and false official statements also be protected by the First Amendment?

TR

Where in the Bill of Rights does it say "I can lie about my military background" and it's considered "Freedom of Speach"..................:mad:

Amazing............................just friggen amazing.

Sounds like water board member Xavier Alvarez should be water boarded

Quote:

Originally Posted by 82ndtrooper (Post 194614)

Where in the Bill of Rights does it say "I can lie about my military background" and it's considered "Freedom of Speach"..................:mad:

The Bill of Rights doesn't say you can do anything. It says what the government cannot do. Our rights are inherent; they aren't granted to us by the government.

As for this guy's argument, I have no idea where it is coming from. First Amendment protection for making false statements generally only applies to making false statements about someone else, and doesn't extend to knowingly false statements. Unless you are deranged, it is a bit difficult to make a false statement about yourself without knowing it to be false. There doesn't appear from the brief news report Snaquebite cites to be any doubt that this guy knew the statements were false.

The Ninth Circuit has invalidated a California law about knowingly making false statements, but that was because the law was not viewpoint-neutral; it only covered negative false statements but permitted positive ones (it was a law criminalizing lying about the police). I suppose this guy's lawyer might be trying to argue that the Stolen Valor Act is not viewpoint-neutral, since it only targets specific claims, but that sounds like a stretch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer (Post 194628)

Al:

Nice analogy!

14 January hearing.. we need to stay on top of this'n... :munchin