Supreme Court strikes down Stolen Valor law

[dinar_stud]

Supreme Court strikes down Stolen Valor law

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has struck down a federal law making it a crime to lie about having received the Medal of Honor and other prized military awards.

The court voted 6-3 Thursday in favor of Xavier Alvarez, a former local elected official in California who falsely claimed he was a decorated war veteran.

Alvarez had pleaded guilty to violating a 2006 law that was adopted with the nation at war in Afghanistan and Iraq and aimed at people making phony claims of heroism in battle. The court, in a judgment written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ordered that his conviction be thrown out.

Text of the Supreme Court's ruling on United States v. Alvarez

Edited June 28, 2012 by dinar_stud

[Redwizard]

But it is a crime to "Jay Walk" WTF

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

***///

All of us here at Camp Sarge are in agreement:

We, as U.S. Military Veterans, have once again been disgraced by the current administration.

They are doing everything they can to humiliate us by stating emphatically that our contribution is of no consequence and not to be respected.

Those of us having served overseas - and know what one looks like - are watching our great Republic being turned into a 3rd world dictatorship.

And we, as defenders of Freedom, are being hobbled in order to lame us so we cannot help you when it finally all goes down.

Had enough yet?

[smee2]

This is a major slap in the face for all the "real" heroes who fought and often died valiantly. I wonder if it is against the law to claim to be a former Supreme Court Justice?

smee2

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

***///

GOOD ONE, SMEE!

You have all of us here at Camp Sarge saying "hear! hear!"

Guess the SCOTUS had to rule that lying about important things is legal in order to keep the current unPresident from facing charges!

[carlablum]

***///

All of us here at Camp Sarge are in agreement:

We, as U.S. Military Veterans, have once again been disgraced by the current administration.

They are doing everything they can to humiliate us by stating emphatically that our contribution is of no consequence and not to be respected.

Those of us having served overseas - and know what one looks like - are watching our great Republic being turned into a 3rd world dictatorship.

And we, as defenders of Freedom, are being hobbled in order to lame us so we cannot help you when it finally all goes down.

Had enough yet? More then enough!!!!!!!!

Couldn't have said it better!!

[Deltori]

This administration continues to attack any semblance of strength, patriotism or exceptionalism on a daily basis and thats just one of the signs that show us the true intentions of Obama and his cohorts.

If it were not true then we would see actions that bolster or protect such honorable values.... today it is just the oposite and so come november let our voices be heard...let us unify once again, roll up our sleeves and beat back the forces that seek to destroy the spirit of America

[carlablum]

This is a major slap in the face for all the "real" heroes who fought and often died valiantly. I wonder if it is against the law to claim to be a former Supreme Court Justice?

smee2

I'm not sure I would want to claim that!

[kiteman]

This administration continues to attack any semblance of strength, patriotism or exceptionalism on a daily basis and thats just one of the signs that show us the true intentions of Obama and his cohorts.

If it were not true then we would see actions that bolster or protect such honorable values.... today it is just the oposite and so come november let our voices be heard...let us unify once again, roll up our sleeves and beat back the forces that seek to destroy the spirit of America

While I share all the frustration with this ruling with the rest of the board (this is a complete sham),

I'm just curious if any of you could liknk this to the Obama administration? You all are laying this at his feet when the law in question was enacted in 2006, the suit was filed by a private citizen, and the law was struck down by a majority of a Conservative led court (including Chief Justice John Roberts).

Where the H E double toothpicks does the Obama adminsistration fit into this.

Conservatives have lost their minds and will blame the anything they can on this administration.

[EagleEye]

***///

All of us here at Camp Sarge are in agreement:

We, as U.S. Military Veterans, have once again been disgraced by the current administration.

They are doing everything they can to humiliate us by stating emphatically that our contribution is of no consequence and not to be respected.

Those of us having served overseas - and know what one looks like - are watching our great Republic being turned into a 3rd world dictatorship.

And we, as defenders of Freedom, are being hobbled in order to lame us so we cannot help you when it finally all goes down.

Had enough yet?

Here here Sarge !!

and Smee it looks to me they have gone from spitting in our faces after Nam to slapping our faces now....and you see it while much of our citizenry do not !!! thanks for being such

a GREAT supporter of America...

[Xtaxguy]

So what we need now is new legislation. The fraudsters can lie about their service, but it will cost them! Make such lies presumptive "fighting words" and we can then administer appropriate justice with zero delay and without concern under criminal law (the liar incited the beat down) or civil tort law (the lying sob asked for it).

If any of the majority had any sense of honor whatsoever, they would have easily categorized such evil lies as the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. They lefties find rationales to proscribe whatever speech they disagree with, but never have a problem with anything that demeans or devalues honor, honesty or traditional moral values.

Hell, SCOTUS's other decision today is "fighting words" in its own right!

[yota691]

Here some more on this subject!! Lying About Earning War Medals Is Protected Speech, Justices Rule

By JAMES DAO

Published: June 28, 2012

Documents http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/29/us/29valor-opinion-doc.html?ref=us

A divided Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a law that made it a crime to lie about having earned a military decoration, saying that the act was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.

Multimedia

Reaction to Stolen Valor Ruling

Twitter users react to the Supreme Court's overturning a federal law making it a crime to lie about having earned a military decoration.

The case arose from the prosecution of Xavier Alvarez under the Stolen Valor Act, a law signed in 2006 that made it a crime for a person to falsely claim, orally or in writing, “to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States.”

Mr. Alvarez, an elected member of the board of directors of a water district in Southern California, said at a public meeting in 2007 that he had received the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award, after being wounded in action as a Marine.

All of those claims were lies, his lawyers later conceded.

Charged with violating the law, Mr. Alvarez argued that his remarks were protected speech under the First Amendment. The trial judge rejected his defense, saying the First Amendment does not apply to statements the speaker knows to be false.

But in 2010, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, reversed that decision, saying that if the law were upheld, “there would be no constitutional bar to criminalizing lying about one’s height, weight, age, or financial status on Match.com or Facebook.”

On Thursday, a six-justice majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court, ruling that the law was overly broad and posed a threat to First Amendment rights by criminalizing speech, even when it was knowingly false.

Though the government has a clear interest in protecting the integrity of military honors, the court said, the Obama administration had failed to demonstrate in its defense of the Stolen Valor Act how Mr. Alvarez’s falsehoods undermined the awards system.

“The First Amendment requires that there be a direct causal link between the restriction imposed and the injury to be prevented,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. “Here, that link has not been shown.”

A concurring opinion written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer and joined by Justice Elena Kagan agreed that criminal prosecution of false statements could have a chilling affect on public debate. But Justice Breyer also provided possible templates for rewriting the act, saying it had “substantial justification.”

“The First Amendment risks flowing from the act’s breadth of coverage could be diminished or eliminated by a more finely tailored statute,” Justice Breyer wrote. “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.”

In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that there had been “an epidemic of false claims about military decorations,” which Congress had reasonably concluded were “inflicting real harm on actual medal recipients and their families.”

He was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

“By holding that the First Amendment nevertheless shields these lies,” Justice Alito wrote, “the court breaks sharply from a long line of cases recognizing that the right to free speech does not protect false factual statements that inflict real harm and serve no legitimate interest.”

Thursday’s ruling by the court was somewhat surprising. During oral arguments in February, most of the justices seemed to accept that the First Amendment did not protect calculated falsehoods that caused at least some kinds of harm and that the government did have a substantial interest in protecting the integrity of its system of military honors.

First Amendment advocates hailed the decision.

“The First Amendment reserves to individual citizens, not the government, the right to separate what is true from what is false, and to decide what ideas to introduce into private conversation and public debate,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union.

But many veterans organizations expressed dismay, saying that criminal prosecution was the only way to deter false claims about military awards. The act called for fines and imprisonment of up to one year.

Mark Seavey, a lawyer who is the new-media manager for the American Legion, said he was confident that a more narrowly drawn Stolen Valor bill would easily pass Congress.

“It’s not a good day for us, but it’s not Black Thursday,” he said.

A bill that would make it illegal to knowingly misrepresent military service with the intent of obtaining “anything of value” was introduced in Congress last year by Representative Joe Heck, Republican of Nevada.

Mr. Heck contends that his bill will pass constitutional muster because it does not attempt to restrict speech but instead prohibit a type of fraud. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/justices-say-lying-about-military-honors-is-protected.html

While I share all the frustration with this ruling with the rest of the board (this is a complete sham),

I'm just curious if any of you could liknk this to the Obama administration? You all are laying this at his feet when the law in question was enacted in 2006, the suit was filed by a private citizen, and the law was struck down by a majority of a Conservative led court (including Chief Justice John Roberts).

Where the H E double toothpicks does the Obama adminsistration fit into this.

Conservatives have lost their minds and will blame the anything they can on this administration.

Why not!! Mr O blames everything on George Bush!! Your talking out both ends just like your Leader!!

Edited June 29, 2012 by yota691

[silverfox5963]

unfriggin believable what next ?

[djgabrielie]

Couldn't have said it better!!

Well said. I'm totally sick of the current administration and the Supreme Court.

[TPSprayduster]

I think they said it was a free speech issue. I being a vet think it is wrong to impersonate a status you never earned. But in america you have rights to do almost whatever you want. Sometimes it plays to your advantage and some it doesn't. All of the freedoms we have are never enough. The Supreme Court has the last say. Can't override their rulings. They are in there until they retire or die. The conservative Chief justice threw a change up when we were looking fast ball. As for the health bill, now you can't be a sorry ass and not have insurance. Does that infringe on your rights to choose not to have insurance? If i have to foot your medical bill i say no pay for insurance you have to have car insurance then you should have health insurance.

[AKVET]

I think they said it was a free speech issue. I being a vet think it is wrong to impersonate a status you never earned. But in america you have rights to do almost whatever you want. Sometimes it plays to your advantage and some it doesn't. All of the freedoms we have are never enough. The Supreme Court has the last say. Can't override their rulings. They are in there until they retire or die. The conservative Chief justice threw a change up when we were looking fast ball. As for the health bill, now you can't be a sorry ass and not have insurance. Does that infringe on your rights to choose not to have insurance? If i have to foot your medical bill i say no pay for insurance you have to have car insurance then you should have health insurance.

Don't know why you were neg but I'll even you out.

[pep007]

One thing you guys don't seem to get. They had to knock it down. If they upheld it we would not have a government at all. They are all guilty. lol

[TPSprayduster]

Don't know why you were neg but I'll even you out.

Some just hit the red button just because it's there. thank you for your service.

[magawatt]

If fraudulently claiming to have served with honors is protected by free speech, writing bad checks should be protected by that same logic.

I "+" Kiteman for the negs he got for pointing out at the Supreme Court is not a part of the Executive branch. Remember your civics classes, folks.

Edited June 29, 2012 by magawatt