Lies are protected free speech???
We read:
"A federal judge in Denver has ruled the Stolen Valor Act is "facially unconstitutional" because it violates free speech and dismissed the criminal case against Rick Strandlof, a man who lied about being an Iraq war veteran.
U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn issued his decision this morning. "The Stolen Valor Act is declared to be facially unconstitutional as a content-based restriction on speech that does not serve a compelling government interest, and consequently that the Act is invalid as violative of the First Amendment," Blackburn wrote in his opinion.
Where do we start? Dressing up in a uniform you did not earn and wearing medals you did not earn is not speech. It is theft.
This judge is a Bush 43 so there isn't a "Democrat judges" angle on this. Also, the legal team for these a55hats comes from The Rutherford Institute.
They won with logic like this: John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, said the law is poorly written and should not be used to prosecute people for simply telling lies.
Source
12 comments:
If the "stolen valor act" is constitutional, then any law which makes lying without the force of oath illegal would be constitutional.
On the other hand, if lying is "free speech" then what becomes of the charge of "perjury?" For what is an "oath" except speech? If I lie about promising to tell the truth, then how can you say that is not free speech?
I'm kinda confused on this one....
If lies are not covered under the umbrella of free speech, prosecuting comedians would be very easy. All you'd have to claim is that the lies they tell -- as exaggerations -- aren't funny, have no merit as satire and political speech, and are therefore slander.
If lies are not covered under the umbrella of free speech,.....
.....then the crime of fraud would not be prosecutable.
Rick Strandlof / Duncan did not just say "I am a vet" and wear medals he did not earn.
Strandlof / Duncan claimed he was a gay Naval Academy graduate that was at the Pentagon on 9/11 and was injured by an IED explosion in Iraq. He claimed he won the Purple Heart and a Silver Star for the action in Iraq.
Strandlof / Duncan used his fabrications to solicit money from people to form a fraudulent veteran's organization. He also used his "status" as a victim to be paid to campaign for a Congressional candidate running for office in Colorado.
One can argue that this was a case of fraud and that would be very compelling.
The Rutherford Institute used much of the same thinking that you do, John D, claiming that if lies are not "free speech," then actors, fictional writers, etc are all in jeopardy.
By that line of thinking, posing as a police officer should be legal, yet it is not. After all, one only needs a fake badge and they are now "a policeman!"
If we protect the badge of a policeman, certainly we can and should protect the medals and honors of those who have served from the wannabes and the liars who seek to use the service and sacrifice of others for self gain.
Well said Anon 1:56.
Uniforms and badges of rank can be purchased from their original owner or army surplus stock all over the world.
That's not theft, it's commerce.
Where it becomes a crime is to use those in order to pass yourself off as a serviceman in order to (for example) gain entrance to a military installation.
But that's a crime of tresspassing, not wearing a uniform.
And the people you deceive are just as much in the wrong as you are, as they would have failed to check your credentials before letting you enter that installation.
Of course if you use a fake identity card or other fake papers you're committing more crimes, if using stolen papers that's other crimes again.
If you buy real papers from someone, he's committing a crime in selling them to you (and you probably in using them).
But simply wearing that uniform while not a military person should never be a crime.
Do Americans also have a constitutional right to produce false advertising about their product?
The problem is not whether "fraud" is protected - it's whether simply claiming to be the recipient of a particular military honor rises to the level of "fraud."
Wikipedia says "in the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent."
The question is, if I simply claim to have gotten the medals, but the only "gain" I receive is the adoration of some simple people who don't check - is that a crime?
Politicians commit fraud all the time - and it is real fraud. But Political speeches, where they deceive the public about what they will do, what they want to do, what they would do if elected, are already protected speech.
My feeling is that until political fraud in general is no longer protected speech, let politicians claim whatever they damn well please when running for office.
As for the guy using his claim of "valor" to raise money for personal use, fraud is the better charge anyway.
The question is, if I simply claim to have gotten the medals, but the only "gain" I receive is the adoration of some simple people who don't check - is that a crime?
Your own citation of Wikipedia says that it is.
In claiming to be something that one is not, they hurt the real thing. They damage the reputation of others.
And I am sorry, but this thing of "they should have checked" (you are the second person to have said this) is blaming the victim for what happened.
Fraud and lies are part of human nature, and as such, can not be eliminated. If they could be eliminated, we would lose judges, politicians, lawyers, and most women.
I doubt we would lose most women. But what's the downside of losing the rest?
"Uniforms and badges of rank can be purchased from their original owner or army surplus stock all over the world."
---There's a difference between dressing like a soldier for Halloween, a paintball tournament, or even a job interview, and actually LYING to people about being in the military.
This is similar to the crime of impersonating an officer. While dressing like a cop isn't a crime, pretending to be a cop to facilitate the comission of a crime is a crime.
"Do Americans also have a constitutional right to produce false advertising about their product?"
---Actually, they don't. Advertising is considered "commercial speech." While regulation varies depending on the product, if you ever see ads for drugs you'll notice long spoken disclaimers that exist not because the company wants to waste valuable time talking about side effects but because the FTC forces them to disclose what a good doctor can tell you.
Gee, can I dress up as a cop with flashing lights on my car to get around Traffic. Sure, if I want to send three - ten years in county. I think they should hand him over t the vets that were actally there and let them deal with the PUNK.
Post a Comment