Thread: Stolen Valor Act struck down

Our Constitution was based on mistrust of government. Not because people are inherently corrupt, but because the incentives in government point to accruing more power to itself. So the founders put in limits that would prevent that from happening. It didn't work as well as hoped, of course. The government, sure enough, has accrued more power to itself at the expense of states and individuals.

Our constitution even assumes that rights are natural or God-given and cannot be taken away by even a majority of the people. People tend to only think of their rights. if it's okay to lie about having sex with an intern, then it's okay to lie about getting a medal. The fact that a person is more likely to lie about sex than about military service does not mean that one should be legal while the other is not.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Funthea,

long time no speaks, matey.

i can understand them who stick to the constitution on this matter, and in the cold logic 'o day, i think they be right...

...but regardin' the bolded, what is government but the people? we elect them and they be citizens just like ourselves. they aren't monarchs, and if we don't like'm, out they go. sayin' yer don't trust the government be akin to sayin', "i don't trust americans". if the people decide this cravenly act 'o fraud be punishable by bein' thrown into the brig (and i think it ought to be), so what of it?

- MeadHallPirate

I trust no one when their position allows for personal gain of themselves at the detriment of the liberties of the governed. As Jefferson said "question with boldness", and know that human nature is a powerful drive, it seeks fulfillment of itself first and foremost and often at the detriment of others. To have blind faith in our elected officials is a recipe for disaster. Observation and diligence always, as complacency is counter intuitive.

funthea
I actually agree with this one. I'm a strict constitutionalists. I agree anyone can say and claim what ever they want without reprisal. I also believe that anyone else is free to point out what a douchbag that person is and plaster it all over the airwaves.

Never has the First Amendment been understood to mean that "anyone can say and claim what ever they want without reprisal". It does not protect knownly false statements of fact which bring harm to others. The dissent made a very compelling case as to why this act should have been upheld.

Fraud is already a crime. What the Stolen valor Act did was punish the speech itself even if no one was harmed by it. As a good rule of thumb, Congress cannot outlaw speech merely because it disapproves of the speech. It can only punish the actual harm the speech does. And it has to be direct harm to an individual, not merely some vague harm to society.

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

Never has the First Amendment been understood to mean that "anyone can say and claim what ever they want without reprisal". It does not protect knownly false statements of fact which bring harm to others. The dissent made a very compelling case as to why this act should have been upheld.

Not exactly true. Just recently the guitarist for the group Boston lost his case in court against the Boston Herald on the grounds that the article linking him to the suicide of his bandmate was acceptable because it was an editorial not a factual news article.

Boston founder Scholz loses defamation suit against Boston Herald - Arts - The Boston Globe

McIntyre cited both arguments in her decision, but noted that a media defamation case requires “the falsity of an assertion” by the media to be proven.

So if you make a statement that is vague enough that "the falsity of assertion" cannot be proven clearly enough you can get away with saying just about anything about anyone.