Stolen Valor Act struck down | General Discussion Topics | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Stolen Valor Act struck down
June 29, 2012
8:26 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10239
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

This is the price of freedom, and the Constitution at its worst. This ruling is purly an extreme of our legal definition of Freedom of Speech, just as dispicable as Puke Ins, or protesting at a military funeral. It is a sad sad day when the law protects those who are so clearly wrong on every level of decency, ethics, or morality. Not only did they overturn this conviction, it overturned the entire law, and refunded the fine of $5000 to this person. 9 Supreme Court Justices may know the fine wording of the law in this case, but in this case they should all be ashamed for not knowing what is right or wrong. Yet just another example of 99.99% knowing this offence is clearly WRONG, and paying for that .01% who doesn't care.

Stolen Valor Act Violates Free Speech, Struck Down in 6-3 Vote
By Todd Rigney · 4 hours ago · 2 Comments

Stolen Valor Actor has been struck down in a recent vote, according to The Hill. The law, which was passed by Congress during George W. Bush’s turn as President, would have made it illegal to lie about receiving military honors and awards. However, since lying, even about earning medals in the armed forces, is protected under the First Amendment. As such, the Stolen Valor Act was deemed unconstitutional. The law failed to pass by a vote of 6-3.

“The First Amendment risks flowing from the Act’s breadth of coverage could be diminished or eliminated by a more finely tailored statute, for example, a statute that requires a showing that the false statement caused specific harm or is focused on lies more likely to be harmful or on contexts where such lies are likely to cause harm,” the Supreme Court said.

However, all is not lost. The court did find that the law had “substantial justification”, which means that it could be re-written in a narrower form by Congress.

The case began in 2007 following the arrest of Xavier Alvarez, who claimed he had received the Medal of Honor for his service to the country. As it turns out, Alvarez was never in the military; everything he’d said was an outright lie, and the government decided to make him pay for his deceit. The man was sentenced to three years probation, issued a $5,000 fine, and ordered to perform community service. His lawyer, meanwhile, said that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional, and appealed to have Alvarez’s conviction overturned.

Although the First Amendment does protect all forms of free speech, the government felt that lying about military honors and awards causes harm to those who have actually spent their lives serving their country.

“False claims make the public skeptical of all claims to have received awards, and they inhibit the government’s efforts to ensure that the armed services and the public perceive awards as going only to the most deserving few,” the government argued.

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online: JeffreyHollister
73 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10239

bionic: 9870

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Tairaa: 2842

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 24144

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 8733

Posts: 123504

Newest Members:

neil zhang, Lynn, Joe1821, Jenny C, Cassandra, Deirdre McMahon, ieltsindia, Von wahlde, lyon smith, Andrew Witmark

Administrators: John Greenewald: 585, blackvault: 1776