Supreme Court strikes down STOLEN VALOR ACT!

[Darrell]

This is fucking ridiculous. madmadmadmadmadmad:mad

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/supre...litary-service/story?id=16669096#.T-zTwLVSTps

 

[retro]

Dunno... I don't see a problem with them striking it down as it stands. The original act is far too broad... I agree with the concept, but not with the implementation of it.

 

[skyblue]

firstly.....the liar is a piece of shit for disrespecting brave young men and women who have put their lives on the line in service

secondly....thats a shit ruling

 

[AnitaBeer]

While I agree that person is a POS that started this all....they were right to strike down the law because of the mentioned reasoning.

 

[Francis]

Yah I can see why they ruled as they did.. He is not worthy but they need to protect the greater need for others..

Would someone than go after past Electoral Candidates for telling the people they would do things they would do and did not.. Those were lies and would be subject to legal action..

Example the war on Iraq and the massive amount of WMD never found.

Yes to some it was incorrect information but others will see it as lies. All depends on your beliefs..

 

[Natasha]

I see lying about military service as no different than lying about law enforcement service. So if you can get locked up for impersonating an officer, why not for impersonating a service member???

At least during the Vietnam era people had the courtesy to stand in person and spit in our veterans' faces. :mad

 

[AnitaBeer]

I see lying about military service as no different than lying about law enforcement service. So if you can get locked up for impersonating an officer, why not for impersonating a service member???

At least during the Vietnam era people had the courtesy to stand in person and spit in our veterans' faces. :mad

I think that was their point. When impersonating an officer you know there is intent of wrong doing, such as trying to get out of trouble, some do it to cause harm, etc.
This law wasn't specific in that term. It just encompassed lying itself. I'd support this being rewritten if it was specific.

 

[Dana]

They need to zone in on specifics; some dirtbag, lying about serving just to get laid should not be punishable. A man or woman masquerading as a vet at a funeral, parade or memorial service is a totally different thing.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

They need to zone in on specifics; some dirtbag, lying about serving just to get laid should not be punishable. A man or woman masquerading as a vet at a funeral, parade or memorial service is a totally different thing.

Interesting that you see a difference.

 

[Dana]

Interesting that you see a difference.

I think there is a big difference.

 

[Natasha]

I think a liar is a liar is a liar.

 

[Francis]

I think a liar is a liar is a liar.

Oh course a Liar is a Liar.. My Favorite move is Liar Liar..

Says a lot about Lawyers and is probably a lot closer to reality than anyone could ever imagine.

 

[Dana]

I think a liar is a liar is a liar.

I'm not saying a liar isn't a liar... I'm saying there is a difference in scenarios. While one is lying to the opposite sex; they might not necessarily be out to commit fraud by actively and publicly attending military services; while others are trying to integrate themselves into funerals, parades, and memorials services.

 

[Natasha]

I'm not saying a liar isn't a liar... I'm saying there is a difference in scenarios. While one is lying to the opposite sex; they might not necessarily be out to commit fraud by actively and publicly attending military services; while others are trying to integrate themselves into funerals, parades, and memorials services.

One could argue fewer people are hurt by them integrating themselves into parades and memorial services than in your scenario where the guy is just trying to get laid. After all, one more person marching in a parade isn't hurting anyone...not like the poor girl who got suckered in by false stories of war and heroism.

 

[Dana]

*shrugs*

 

[MoonOwl]

I see lying about military service as no different than lying about law enforcement service. So if you can get locked up for impersonating an officer, why not for impersonating a service member???

At least during the Vietnam era people had the courtesy to stand in person and spit in our veterans' faces. :mad

Indeed.

I am old enough to remember the news coverage - every single night - from then. I remember seeing people spit on our returning troops. Even as young as I was I knew that spit was misplaced. That spit belonged on the politicians who sent them. I feel a rant coming so I'll leave instead

 

[Zorak]

Funny how the world changes. Gone from spitting on troops to idolising them.

 

[Aeval]

They need to zone in on specifics; some dirtbag, lying about serving just to get laid should not be punishable. A man or woman masquerading as a vet at a funeral, parade or memorial service is a totally different thing.

One could argue fewer people are hurt by them integrating themselves into parades and memorial services than in your scenario where the guy is just trying to get laid. After all, one more person marching in a parade isn't hurting anyone...not like the poor girl who got suckered in by false stories of war and heroism.

Natasha, you put that far too nicely, but that disgusting view isn't the intent of this thread, I'll leave it.

I don't know...I can see both sides of the argument, but it just seems so wrong to give someone the 'right' to wear medals they didn't earn...it's a matter of respect.

 

[acctnt shan]

Funny how the world changes. Gone from spitting on troops to idolising them.

The world hasn't changed, you're just comparing apples and oranges. You have people who might still spit on the troops today, and you had people who idolized them back then, too.

---------------

But on topic... it's necessary to be very careful with language in legislation. Obviously it is wrong to lie, but would you want to risk setting the precedent that it is a crime to lie at all? The trick is to word the Act in such a way that it is not so specific so as to allow loopholes, but specific enough that it couldn't be used to set a broader precedent on whether lying in general is punishable.

I'd be very wary of anything that could establish a precedent like that. It starts to step dangerously close to limiting free speech.

 

[Tangerine]

I think a liar is a liar is a liar.

And in this country our Constitution gives you the right to be a liar, as long as your actions harm no one.