Stolen valor SCOTUSS decision

Billnew

Legend
Apr 23, 2004
21,246
1,234
58
Ohio
Visit site
✟35,363.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
The nation's top court voted 6-3 on Thursday that the Stolen Valor Act of 2006 infringes upon speech protected by the First Amendment. The law, which was enacted amid the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, targeted those who made bogus claims about receiving the Medal of Honor or other military decorations. The retooled Stolen Valor Act of 2011 wouldn't stop barroom boasting about bogus service, but would take aim at people who benefit financially or otherwise from their phony claims.

Read more: Lawmakers retarget ‘valor’ thieves after court rules bogus military boasts are free speech | Fox News

Did they rule that lying about service is protected free speech as long as it doesn't gain the person financially?
Because lying has never been protected as free speech.

If a person writes it on an application and signs it as true it is making a false statement and is punishable.

It is dispicable for any person to claim honors that only our war veterans should lay claim too. This is true for civilians(never served) but worse for veterans, who should know better. For drink or prestiege.
 

Drekkan85

Immortal until proven otherwise
Dec 9, 2008
2,274
225
Japan
✟23,051.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Liberals
Corporations are people, penalties are now taxes, and fraud is legal.

What a great supreme court we have.

Lying doesn't necessarily equal fraud. That's why they needed this specific act (plus, the legislators get to look all pro-military and macho) - lying for gain has been, and still is, fraud and already prosecutable. The fellow that they used this against didn't actually materially gain from his lies - I'd think that libertarians would be awfully wary about the government saying speech for speeches sake, which doesn't cause harm to anyone else, should be illegal.

Your other two mischaracterizations are no better. Corporations are person-like entities for reasons historical and legal; that particular construction is necessary for modern business and, while a separate entity could be constructed legislatively, it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to update legislation and make sure you eliminated loopholes and potential glitches. As for penalties being taxes - it's perfectly easy to see how the health care penalty is a tax in the legal sense. Just because the government says, "It's not a tax" doesn't mean it's not.
 
Upvote 0

CyberPaladin

Veteran
Dec 2, 2005
2,948
202
44
✟53,287.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Did they rule that lying about service is protected free speech as long as it doesn't gain the person financially?
Because lying has never been protected as free speech.
To be fair lying in general isn't illegal and this sort of law could easily be the start to a slippery slope to allow law enforcement an end run around or basic constitutional rights.

If a person writes it on an application and signs it as true it is making a false statement and is punishable.

I believe that would qualify as fraud because your employer hires you and therefore is paying you to do a job that this law doesn't require the person commiting desceit to recieve any sort of finicial benefit.

Congress may be able to write a better law now that this one has been through the system. Sure hope so.

Or they'll go a smarter and instead focus on the cases that would actaully qualify as fraud making tougher penalties say maybe sentence enhancement of 5 years added on for each incident.
 
Upvote 0

pgp_protector

Noted strange person
Dec 17, 2003
51,661
17,589
55
Earth For Now
Visit site
✟390,075.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Read more: Lawmakers retarget ‘valor’ thieves after court rules bogus military boasts are free speech | Fox News

Did they rule that lying about service is protected free speech as long as it doesn't gain the person financially?
Because lying has never been protected as free speech.

If a person writes it on an application and signs it as true it is making a false statement and is punishable.

It is dispicable for any person to claim honors that only our war veterans should lay claim too. This is true for civilians(never served) but worse for veterans, who should know better. For drink or prestiege.

I'm a Dog.
 
Upvote 0

pgp_protector

Noted strange person
Dec 17, 2003
51,661
17,589
55
Earth For Now
Visit site
✟390,075.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,408
15,554
Colorado
✟427,861.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
when Elana Kagan, Ruth Ginsberg, and Sotomayer, and Bryer think of war hero, they see a fascist, oppressive white male bully, and they have no interest in him, or protecting his honor. He has no honor, in their view, he is responsible for hundreds of years of slavery, colonialism, and anti-semitism, as well as sexism.
And once again Roberts is the turncoat!
.
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
staff edit

You lost me on that "inter-racial transfer of wealth". I like to hear more about it.

And, Breitbart was making us look bad. He couldn't keep his lies straight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,161
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,505.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
What I'm trying to figure out is ...

If it isn't illegal to claim a military medal you haven't earned, can it still be illegal to use someone else's trademark? It looks to me like the same logic could be used to throw out our whole trademark system.


*

*
 
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
47
Burnaby
Visit site
✟29,046.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
What I'm trying to figure out is ...

If it isn't illegal to claim a military medal you haven't earned, can it still be illegal to use someone else's trademark? It looks to me like the same logic could be used to throw out our whole trademark system.


*

*

It would only be illegal (in both cases) if you were profiting from it. I can say Coca-Cola all day long, but it's not illegal.
 
Upvote 0