Supreme Court tosses "Stolen Valor Act"

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Do not let this thread go political. This topic has nothing to do with Obama or too much into
Politics. If it gets out if hand the thread will be closed.

 

[RabidAlien]

From what I understand, the SCOTUS shut down the Stolen Valor Act because, quite simply, it was waaaaaaay too broad. If someone mentioned a date they were in service, but remembered the date wrong, you could have taken him to court over it. The original Act was so broad as to be virtually undefinable. So...it was struck down. The guys who wrote the original Act are now going back and re-writing it, and specifying that anyone can say anything, as per the 1st Amendment...but if they benefit in any way other than receiving their well-deserved beat-down in a dark alley with 50 servicemen standing around who saw nothing...if the douchebag receives so much as a free match to light a smoke, THEN they are benefiting, and therefore it is no longer 1st Amendment speech, but profiteering. The whole thing sickens me...the fact that we need to put regulations in effect to handle douchebags who would go around lying about their service...its just wrong.

(edited that last sentence to remove any possible political ties/innuendos, don't want to get this thread closed down)

 

[ToughOmbre]

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'm with Mike. The key here is, as Mike stated "as long as no harm is caused". If some jerk wants to stand on a street corner and claim he is a "hero" who has been awarded the MOH, then I believe that he is within his 1st Amendment rights (as much as I personally think he is a piece of garbage)!

Now if he were to profit and/or gain financial benefit etc. from such a claim my guess is that he would and should be liable to civil/criminal charges for fraud, deception, whatever. And that is whole different ballgame. Prosecute to the full extent of the law!

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Steve

 

[mikewint]

Thanks Steve you said it better than I. I only lost it one time and that was with those so-called religious cretins of the Westboro church with their "Thank God for dead soldiers" signs and other filth. Had not been for a very nice cop I'd have been in jail. My mind tells me they have the right but my emotions kicked in. It was too much like Vietnam and hit a raw nerve. It's like protecting the neo-nazis or child-molesters.
If some clown proclaims himself an MOH and I failto check him out and proceed to name a building in his honor, who's the fool? Caveat emptor