4

Supreme Court to think about Stolen Valor Act

5 comments, 1256 views, posted 7:37 am 22/10/2011 in Politics by AngelicaXavier
AngelicaXavier has 2 posts, 1 threads, 0 points, location: USA

The United States Supreme Court, on Monday, announced that they would be listening to a problem to the Stolen Valor Act. The Stolen Valor Act at issue in the lawsuit is intended to defend military awards, but could violate First Amendment rights.
Source for this article: Supreme Court agrees to hear arguments about Stolen Valor Act
The Stolen Valor Act explained
The beginning of the Stolen Valor Act was in 2005 when it was introduced. In 2006, it was signed into law. The law makes it a federal crime to "falsely represent oneself as having obtained any United States military decoration or honor." Initially, it was meant to prevent people from lying. They should not be saying things occurred in military service that did not. There are more than 200 times as several individuals claiming to have received the Medal of Honor than there are Honor of Honor recipients.
How the constitution is included
The Stolen Valor Act brings up many debates. There's a lot of government support though. Several courts have ruled the Stolen Valor Act to be unconstitutional because it targets a type of speech only because it is untrue. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear this question and issue a final ruling on the constitutionality of the regulation in the case United States v. Alvarez. The case is about Xavier Alvarez that said he served in the Marines but pleaded guilty with the Stolen Valor Act as a former Water Board member in south Pomona, California.
Lying
The primary constitutional question at issue in United States v. Alvarez is the main difference between a lie and fraud. Fraud is an action towards another person. In it, someone else is harmed in some way. The only time that a lie is prosecuted, usually, is when an individual signs an affidavit for information or if an individual is under oath. It is only illegal to lie if a person promises legally to tell the truth.
Contemplate the constitution
Lies that do not fall under perjury or fraud statues have, in the past, been protected by the First Amendment. This involves protections for all speech that is inappropriate. That means you can say anything you need, even if it makes people angry, due to the Amendment. This speech that the Stolen Valor Act covers is not included in any of these categories. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if lying about military service is, in fact, constitutionally protected or not.
Articles cited
MetNews: http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/alva101811.htm Global Post: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/111017/stolen-valor-act-unconstitutional-supreme-court-military-medal USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/story/2011-10-17/supreme-court-medal-lies/50802628/1 The State News: http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2011/03/first_amendment_still_protects_lies

Comments

2
2:35 pm 22/10/2011

HariSeldon


The Stolen Valor act is plainly unconstitutional. There is no way it could be seriously argued otherwise. It is ridiculous that the Supreme Court would even hear the case against it.

0
2:37 pm 22/10/2011

Cnik

If some fucktard wants to pretend he is someone he is not, eventually that shit will catch up to him

0
2:54 pm 22/10/2011

z0phi3l

Quote by HariSeldon:

The Stolen Valor act is plainly unconstitutional. There is no way it could be seriously argued otherwise. It is ridiculous that the Supreme Court would even hear the case against it.



It's not so much the lying about your service or lack of service, it's about the ones who defraud people and the Government with their false documents, some of the medals the fakers are using are protected by law even before the Stolen Valor act and those laws needed enforcing, that's all the act does, helps with the enforcing of those laws and adds penalties for fraud.

1
3:02 pm 22/10/2011

HariSeldon

Quote by z0phi3l:
Quote by HariSeldon:

The Stolen Valor act is plainly unconstitutional. There is no way it could be seriously argued otherwise. It is ridiculous that the Supreme Court would even hear the case against it.


It's not so much the lying about your service or lack of service, it's about the ones who defraud people and the Government with their false documents, some of the medals the fakers are using are protected by law even before the Stolen Valor act and those laws needed enforcing, that's all the act does, helps with the enforcing of those laws and adds penalties for fraud.


as you know, and as stated in the article, if you lie about your status as a medal of honor awardee or as a astronaut for that matter to commit fraud or do so under oath you are breaking existing laws. Laws that are unarguably constitutional.

If you lie about being awarded a medal of honor in order to get laid then you are a liar and an asshole but that is it.

Merely lying is not illegal.

Lying about being awarded a military medal should not be treated differently than any other lies. The mere fact that there is a lot of emotion involved, that some are particularly offended by telling lies about military service should not make a difference in the law. At least if we follow the constitution.

1
4:32 pm 22/10/2011

Viscera

It says alot about the nature and condition of humanity that, 1) Lying is so readily accepted, 2) that there are some who seem to think that laws and legal wranglings will stop those who do lie, and 3) It's so endemic that it has become a problem the courts have to deal with in various ways.

Add Comment

via teoti, or register to add a comment!