Appeals court rules Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional

[Ralph Wiggum]

Lying about military honors is not a crime, a federal appeals court has ruled, tossing out the prosecution of a California public official who falsely claimed to have won the prestigious Medal of Honor.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 there was inadequate "compelling governmental interest" when Congress passed the Stolen Valor Act in 2006.

Xavier Alvarez had won a seat on the Three Valley Water District Board of Directors in 2007, and at his first open meeting claimed to be a retired Marine who won the Medal of Honor in 1987. The highest military decoration awarded by the U.S. government is sometimes mistakenly called the Congressional Medal of Honor. "I got wounded many times by the same guy," Alvarez declared, according to court records. "I'm still around."

While the three-judge panel ruled Alvarez's free speech rights were violated, they showed little sympathy for his actions, calling them "nothing but a series of bizarre lies."

"We have no doubt that society would be better off if Alvarez would stop spreading worthless, ridiculous, and offensive untruths," the panel concluded in its ruling, handed down Tuesday. "But, given our historical skepticism of permitting the government to police the line between truth and falsity, and between valuable speech and drivel, we preemptively protect all speech, including false statements, in order that clearly protected speech may flower in the shelter of the First Amendment."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/18/california.stolen.valor.ruling/

[The Hollywood NeoCon]

So now apparently, THIS douchebag is now free to shit upon the military once again...

[thundley4]

TominTib can come out of hiding once again.

[DefiantSix]

Tom Harkin, John F'n Kommie and that other asshat in the Regime are free and clear, too.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Tom Harkin, John F'n Kommie and that other asshat in the Regime are free and clear, too.

Mark Kirk, moderate Republican running for U.S. Senate in Illinois, got into a little trouble recently for the same thing.

[Ralph Wiggum]

TominTib can come out of hiding once again.

Some of the DUmmies are making fun of the ruling.

[Crazy Horse]

This wasn't about lying, this was supposed to be about people wearing military honors that weren't earned.

[The Hollywood NeoCon]

This wasn't about lying, this was supposed to be about people wearing military honors that weren't earned.

Exactly, which is why I think this an absolute LOUSY test case in this instance. Lying is one thing (and is all I need to know to keep you the hell away from me and mine), but I would have much rather preferred to see the shitstains who actually wear the uniform and medals held to the fire (literally).

[dutch508]

So now apparently, THIS douchebag is now free to shit upon the military once again...

Ah, yes...General McCockinmouth.

[Eupher]

A fudgepacker, just to add insult to injury.

[JohnnyReb]

JohnnyReb thinks he will claim to be a lawyer...the court should find that acceptable.

[DefiantSix]

JohnnyReb thinks he will claim to be a lawyer...the court should find that acceptable.

They ask for your credentials, just send 'em my way.  I'll back you up.

(And if they ask for my credentials, tell 'em I'm not a doctor, but I'll play one in the hotel room.)

[NHSparky]

Ah, yes...General McCockinmouth.

Actually, I think the guys over at TAH were calling him Ballduster McSoulpatch.

[rich_t]

First of all.....let me say unequivocally that I think this man (and others like him) who lie and say they served in the military and earned high honors is a scumball beyond words and probably deserves to be dropped off at Camp Pendleton and let the Marines there take care of him. I cannot tell you how disgusting I find this man (and others) who demeaned those who served this country and especially those who served so valiantly they earned special and rare honors, such as the Medal of Honor. Words adequately describing my disgust and outrage fail me.

HOWEVER, having said THAT.....I don't know that I disagree with the Court's ruling. (I'm agreeing with the 9th Circuit...God help me!) The man is a bald-faced liar but do we REALLY want lying to be grounds for the federal government to come in and put us in jail? Where does it stop? If I speak at a group and tell out and out lies about the president (it would be hard to make up lies that could top the TRUTH about him!), should I be arrested for doing so? Someone should call my hand and chastise me for TELLING those lies but do we really want repulsive, disgusting, untrue speech to be punished by the federal government? And who is to say exactly which lies are federal offenses and which are not? Or whether it IS a lie or not? The President? Do we not fear that he, or some future despot in power here, will misuse and abuse their power by arresting ANY kind of dissenting speech?

[The Hollywood NeoCon]

.I don't know that I disagree with the Court's ruling. (I'm agreeing with the 9th Circuit...God help me!) The man is a bald-faced liar but do we REALLY want lying to be grounds for the federal government to come in and put us in jail? Where does it stop? If I speak at a group and tell out and out lies about the president (it would be hard to make up lies that could top the TRUTH about him!), should I be arrested for doing so? Someone should call my hand and chastise me for TELLING those lies but do we really want repulsive, disgusting, untrue speech to be punished by the federal government? And who is to say exactly which lies are federal offenses and which are not? Or whether it IS a lie or not? The President? Do we not fear that he, or some future despot in power here, will misuse and abuse their power by arresting ANY kind of dissenting speech?

Rich I have to admit I agree with you here. These people are repulsive sacks of excrement, and I've been exceedingly conflicted over this issue. However, Gabe over at AoSHQ does a fantastic job of laying it all out. Here's a clip:

I originally thought the Stolen Valor Act was broader in that it applied to things other than speech, like wearing the uniform or wearing or displaying medals. I also thought it required more for a conviction -- for example, proof of fraud or harm to another or attempts to gain a benefit.

I'm not a fan of the idea proposed by the prosecutors here that the First Amendment -- which purports to prevent Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech" -- doesn't apply to lies, though I admit I tend toward First Amendment absolutism.

Read the whole thing if you get the chance.

[Carl]

First of all.....let me say unequivocally that I think this man (and others like him) who lie and say they served in the military and earned high honors is a scumball beyond words and probably deserves to be dropped off at Camp Pendleton and let the Marines there take care of him. I cannot tell you how disgusting I find this man (and others) who demeaned those who served this country and especially those who served so valiantly they earned special and rare honors, such as the Medal of Honor. Words adequately describing my disgust and outrage fail me.

HOWEVER, having said THAT.....I don't know that I disagree with the Court's ruling. (I'm agreeing with the 9th Circuit...God help me!) The man is a bald-faced liar but do we REALLY want lying to be grounds for the federal government to come in and put us in jail? Where does it stop? If I speak at a group and tell out and out lies about the president (it would be hard to make up lies that could top the TRUTH about him!), should I be arrested for doing so? Someone should call my hand and chastise me for TELLING those lies but do we really want repulsive, disgusting, untrue speech to be punished by the federal government? And who is to say exactly which lies are federal offenses and which are not? Or whether it IS a lie or not? The President? Do we not fear that he, or some future despot in power here, will misuse and abuse their power by arresting ANY kind of dissenting speech?

I get what you say and is thought provoking.
That is why I rarely wander into military discussions here and if I do always make it clear I am a civilian and never was in any of our armed services...it is important to me that veterans be distinguished for their service.

It would seem there can be some validity for a law though on this matter as now it is illegal to impersonate a LEO so not too much different.
If there is a gain of some sort to doing it then it would also seem to have precedent for those who scam people with a false identity such as a financial advisor.

I am torn on wanting our service men and women to be honored for their willingness to die for this country without worry that someone would steal that and the issues you raise.

[rich_t]

Rich I have to admit I agree with you here. These people are repulsive sacks of excrement, and I've been exceedingly conflicted over this issue. However, Gabe over at AoSHQ does a fantastic job of laying it all out. Here's a clip:

Read the whole thing if you get the chance.

That was worth reading IMO.

[rich_t]

I get what you say and is thought provoking.
That is why I rarely wander into military discussions here and if I do always make it clear I am a civilian and never was in any of our armed services...it is important to me that veterans be distinguished for their service.

It would seem there can be some validity for a law though on this matter as now it is illegal to impersonate a LEO so not too much different.
If there is a gain of some sort to doing it then it would also seem to have precedent for those who scam people with a false identity such as a financial advisor.

I am torn on wanting our service men and women to be honored for their willingness to die for this country without worry that someone would steal that and the issues you raise.

It is only illegal to impersonate a current LEO.  There is no law making it a crime to falsely claim being a former LEO.

I'm a combat vet and I absolutely despise those that claim honors that they haven't earned, or to claim service that they haven't done.  But should such a claim be a federal offense?

[Carl]

It is only illegal to impersonate a current LEO.  There is no law making it a crime to falsely claim being a former LEO.

I'm a combat vet and I absolutely despise those that claim honors that they haven't earned, or to claim service that they haven't done.  But should such a claim be a federal offense?

I don`t know,a part of me wants them always to be recognized as unique and revered in the service of our country but  I hear ya.

[Chris_]

I don`t know,a part of me wants them always to be recognized as unique and revered in the service of our country but  I hear ya.

I've never had the slightest desire to take credit for something I had nothing to do with.  It's dishonorable and just plain wrong.

[Carl]

I've never had the slightest desire to take credit for something I had nothing to do with.  It's dishonorable and just plain wrong.

To me it is approaching the very lowest and despicable thing a person could do and hope there is some valid legal means to prevent it without opening any doors that are not desirable.

[Chris_]

I think Stolen Valor would be easier to enforce if it was related to fraud instead of being interpreted as a first amendment issue.

[AllosaursRus]

I think Stolen Valor would be easier to enforce if it was related to fraud instead of being interpreted as a first amendment issue.

Well, how many voted for this puke on the grounds they thought he was a Medal of Honor recipient? If that ain't fraud, what the hell is it?

[Eupher]

It is only illegal to impersonate a current LEO.  There is no law making it a crime to falsely claim being a former LEO.

I'm a combat vet and I absolutely despise those that claim honors that they haven't earned, or to claim service that they haven't done.  But should such a claim be a federal offense?

The short answer is yes.

Period.

Some things simply should not be ****ed with. And stealing valor is one of those things. Another is desecrating the flag as part of a public stunt.

Say what you want about "freedom of speech". The last time I checked, "speech" is a form of communication involving the articulation of sounds or writing words to convey a message.

These acts of thievery go far beyond mere speech. Speech is not harmful, ordinarily and in the right context. But what these vermin are doing is committing overt and deliberate acts of thievery, hence the term "Stolen Valor".

Theft is punishable under the law, is it not? If so, then these acts ought to be punished in the same manner.

[ReaganForRushmore]

HOWEVER, having said THAT.....I don't know that I disagree with the Court's ruling. (I'm agreeing with the 9th Circuit...God help me!) The man is a bald-faced liar but do we REALLY want lying to be grounds for the federal government to come in and put us in jail? Where does it stop? If I speak at a group and tell out and out lies about the president (it would be hard to make up lies that could top the TRUTH about him!), should I be arrested for doing so? Someone should call my hand and chastise me for TELLING those lies but do we really want repulsive, disgusting, untrue speech to be punished by the federal government? And who is to say exactly which lies are federal offenses and which are not? Or whether it IS a lie or not? The President? Do we not fear that he, or some future despot in power here, will misuse and abuse their power by arresting ANY kind of dissenting speech?


The Ninth over stepped it's position. By ruling this way, it truly depends on the definition of what is is.
This allows the further denigration of the Rule of Law to mean what ever a self serving individual wants it
to mean. In the cases of Kerry and Clinton it allows them to lie to advance their own careers at the cost
of others. It allows them to enrich themselves personally at the expense of others.

Why have the Rule of Law unless there are consequences for actions?