Supreme Court tosses "Stolen Valor Act"

[ccheese]

The Supreme Court, on Thursday, struck down a federal law that made it a crime to lie about receiving the Medal of Honor and other prized military decorations, with justices branding the false claim "contemptible" but nonetheless protected by the First Amendment. The court voted 6 - 3 in favor of Xavier Alvarez, a former elected official in California who falsely said he was a decorated war veteran and had pleaded guilty to violating a 2006 law, known as The Stolen Valor Act. He had claimed he was a MOH recipient.

The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ordered the conviction thrown out.

What a crock.........

Charles

 

[Bucksnort101]

I find it sad that I am saying this, but it does not suprise me one bit.

 

[meatloaf109]

#^@(*@^+!!!
And %$@*$!!!

 

[Bucksnort101]

#^@(*@^+!!!
And %$@*$!!!

Ditto, well said!!!

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

Crap.

 

[andy2012]

Boy, the Supreme Court can't do its job anymore, they seem out of touch.

 

[vikingBerserker]

#^@(*@^+!!!
And %$@*$!!!

A-Fricken-Men!

 

[mikewint]

OK, into the breach. We've gone round with this before. It is indeed contemptible, BUT, constitutional rights are not to protect positive, well-liked, popular things but to protect the unpopular, negative, unlikeable. We, as Americans can say(and do) the stupid, hateful, unpopular as long as no harm is caused. When we stop protecting the unpopular someone always comes along and declares you unpopular.
The Romans knew Caveat Emptor

 

[meatloaf109]

OK, into the breach. We've gone round with this before. It is indeed contemptible, BUT, constitutional rights are not to protect positive, well-liked, popular things but to protect the unpopular, negative, unlikeable. We, as Americans can say(and do) the stupid, hateful, unpopular as long as no harm is caused. When we stop protecting the unpopular someone always comes along and declares you unpopular.
The Romans knew Caveat Emptor

I know, as I have taken on the "unpopular speech" speech myself a couple of times, but I can't see how outright lying can be considered "freedom of speech". The communication of ones opinions or ideas is one thing... but an outright lie,...
Well, "F" it,.. I'm the King of England!
(If I can get enough people to believe it, we got a whole new empire going on!)

 

[N4521U]

That is what is going thru my head. If it is a lie for ones gain, it is a crime!

 

[Wayne Little]

court system......what a load of BullSh!t

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I an with meatloaf on this matter. As much as i believe in Freedom of Speech. Outright lieing for personak gain is not a freedom.

 

[N4521U]

One day the only people to be held accountable will be the odd honest one.
Take a gander at our PM, that Gillard woman for example!

 

[vikingBerserker]

I just don't get it. They lie to get something in return, , it's outright fraud.

 

[Lucky13]

(to the fullest of extreme and foul language!)

How the h*ll, can you allow lowlifes like this, lie about being awarded the MOH or any other gallant medals, medals that those that has been awarded them put their own life at risk, for a fellow brother (sister) in arms, more often than not, not live to tell the story!
Should put them face to face with those awarded these medals and have them explain themself...

Can't believe the......never mind, too pissed off!

 

[GrauGeist]

The problem that we Americans have in this day and age, is Constitutional interpretation.

The first amendment was written so that citizens were safeguarded from persecution by the government if they spoke out against the government, it's officials or policies...NOT so they can purchase a medal and steal honor that does not belong to them.

This amendment needs to be respected for the power it offers a citizen and should not allowed to be used (or abused) as a free pass for any whim, frivolous notion or offensive act.

OK...I'll get off my soap-box now :/

 

[mikewint]

Again, my personal feelings are with all of you BUT, it is such a very slippery slope. As soon as any freedom is limited it becomes easier and easier to take more and more and more until nothing remains.
MeatL, if you want to claim that you are the King of England, more power to you. If i'm stupid enough to believe you without supporting evidence then I deserve my sign. Now if you try to use my belief to get something from me, money, property, etc. THEN you have crossed a legal line. So yell FIRE as much as you want but if it is in a crowded theater then it becomes a crime

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

 

[N4521U]

Mike, I think you have put it in perspective. However, the unfortunate thing is, everything presented to anyone, has to be verified. Almost everything has to be taken with a grain of salt until verified.

I had an acquaintance who had a collection of all kinds of high powered and semi automatic weapons, claimed he was a seal. Then I visited him, with another acquaintance who just happened to be in the Navy with him. Yep! He never touched another weapon outside of boot camp. Turned out I had fired more as an air crewman. Disappointing to say the least. Although we didn't let on, and he still goes on pretending. He needn't. He has so much more going for him than having to do this. Sad.

 

[futuredogfight]

First Obama-Care now this!?

 

[razor1uk]

I find this abhorent in level of language that'd be wholley unreadable.. having said that, I think it has F-all to do with Obama, and more to do with lawyers, interpretaions, judges looking for voters or politic's to keep them on the roll - sorry - the bar. And possibly the same said judges wanting to get the buck passed on to the pres and politico's instead - they know they'll be a short sighted right wing back lash to this and any percieved lefties in the public/mobs eyeline.

But how well coved is it under that 2005 or 6 Valour Law/precident thingy... surely that could be voted/petitioned for being beefed up to inclued non-ex-military person(s) using gov' issued medals that weren't issued to them or their relatives as a way to earn money or gain aids/benefits.
Did he earn/gain money or rebates or reductions, or free entry into museums/mlitary clubs and such etc, or was he only dreaming out aloud like one of those ranters/preachers alone on a street corner?

Then again, if they did convict him (a politcian) of fraudulent/misleading actions connected with military awards/decorations, then they would have to overturn as I'm sure many others too; be they politico's, ex-pres's or Joe Floggs...