We read:
"The Supreme Court said Monday that it will hear an emotionally charged dispute over a federal law that makes it a crime to lie about being a war hero and earning military medals. The case, involving the Stolen Valor Act passed in 2006, tests the reach of First Amendment free-speech protection for false statements, including those about personal military feats."
Source
How the Devil did this get into SCOTUS? Since when did the 1st Amendment protect lies?? Apparently some lower courts have ruled that it does. So libel is now protected too? American courts can be a sorry lot.
9 comments:
Mr. Ray - you really should read the articles a little more closely: Government lawyers who have appealed a decision invalidating the law...
It is the government appealing to the SCOTUS because the law was struck down.
I believe the 9th Circus actually got this one right when they struck the law down - one of their few shining moments.
I also believe that because it was the 9th Circus that the government thinks they may be able to get it overturned - as the 9th is the most overturned circuit court in the United States.
…the 9th is the most overturned circuit court in the United States.
With good reason.
From the article:
Lower court judges who found the law a breach of the First Amendment expressed concerns the government was targeting speech "solely because it is a lie."
Libel and slander laws also target certain speech when it can be proven to be a lie. Those laws have not been overturned on First Amendment grounds. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that the First Amendment does not protect provable lies.
The Stolen Valor law targets certain speech where it is even easier to prove that the claims are a lie than in most libel and slander cases. Unless the claimant has a serious mental problem, they know for certain that they were not in the military, and as a result, that they are deliberately lying. Military records are also relatively easily checked to determine the truth of the claim.
It seems clear to me that the 9th Circus should be overturned once again.
I'm not familiar with the details of the law, but if someone lies about anything, while not under oath, is not a crime (or shouldn't be). It is one's right to be a low down dirty liar. However, if someone is hoping to gain financially by lying, then I believe there are already laws against fraud, and etc., that apply.
-L
However you have people that put this down or applications or people running for office that will lie about this and then they can gain financially so it should be a law. Ot the person could be in a debate or some other thing else and try to use these lies as a way to support their case. Once again it is sad that we have to have a law about lying about something like this. What happened to just telling the truth.
Making 'lies' illegal could be a very dangerous thing for freedom of speech. What I consider a lie others may consider the absolute truth. What I consider a little embellishment others may consider a complete lie.
Saying something that is untrue has never been actionable or illegal - except where doing so has other consequences and generally where actual harm is caused. Also, intent (ie malice or gain) is also frequently an element for good reason.
I have no problem with criminal sanctions for obtaining a benefit by deceit - it is already illegal. It just doesn't specifically rate to military service.
The next step, I suppose, would be a First Amendment right to say lies about your product ie false advertising.
I wonder how many of the writers of the Bill of Rights considered it was a right to tell lies.
It's a shame that these kind of questions even come up in our over-lawyered society. The Founding Fathers intent for the First Amendment had nothing to do with advertising, stolen valor, libel, shouting fire in a theater, online harassement or anything else tangental to subject. It was intended to prevent the government from locking you up for saying that the government sucks. Unfortunately, from a legal perspective, absent fraud or threats, people are pretty much allowed to be a jerk. I wouldn't mind that so much if it was also legal for the public at large to deal more, um, "kinetically," with them.
If this law is not struck down, the next time someone asks me if I am any good with women, and I say, "I have gotten a medal for it." I have suddenly opened myself up to a criminal proceeding that could result in 6 months in prison. While my answer would be a baldfaced lie, why would justice be served by having this law on the books in addition to the fraud laws already there. The next time you say something to cover 10 minutes of time where the traffic was not bad, but the blog post you were commenting on, took longer than you thought, remember how while there might not be a right to lie, there should be a limit on what is considered criminal.
While my answer would be a baldfaced lie, why would justice be served by having this law on the books in addition to the fraud laws already there.
The Stolen Valor Act is not a law against lying, it is a law against fraud. Just as a fake Rolex diminishes the value of a real Rolex, people that claim to have gotten an award or a medal diminish the value of those who have served above and beyond the call of duty.
The case the 9th Circuit overturned was based on a guy who claimed to have been in the military and been awarded medals for various services. He was elected to a city council position in part because the people respected his service.
His record was a fraud and he received a benefit from that fraud.
Awards and medals are more than pieces of tin and cloth. It is a recognition by a grateful nation for service and heroism of the those who served.
That heroism and that service has a value. To allow others to usurp that value is not merely a "lie." It is no where close to the same as why you are late.
If a person wants to lie, that is fine and it is on them. If a person wants to commit fraud and diminish others, that is a valid government interest.
Post a Comment