Fraudsters have a RIGHT to lie about winning medals after Su

[styky]

Fraudsters have a RIGHT to lie about winning medals after Supreme Court says false military claims are part of free speech

By Daily Mail Reporter
PUBLISHED: 21:53 GMT, 28 June 2012 | UPDATED: 06:00 GMT, 29 June 2012

The Supreme Court was decidedly busy on Thursday as it announced that in addition to upholding the health care reform law, it also struck down a federal law making it a crime to lie about receiving the Medal of Honor and other prized military awards.

The justices branded the false claim ‘contemptible’ but nonetheless protected by the First Amendment.

The court voted 6-3 in favor of Xavier Alvarez, a former local elected official in California who falsely said he was a decorated war veteran and had pleaded guilty to violating the 2006 law, known as the Stolen Valor Act.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1zJkgtxZl

[RadicallyLiberal]

yet, if his opponent said he received a Section-8 dismissal it would be slanderous.

What a wonderful world.

[wildernessvoice]

So now John Kerry has how many purple hearts??

[LAR]

Just to split semantics, No one wins the medal of honor. It's not a parlour game.

[RedDog]

How does this differ from claiming to have a Masters or a Ph.D. on a job application when you don't? How about presenting a completely fabricated career history? You are presenting an inaccurate representation of yourself that is fraudulent and can only be intended to mislead.

I'm beginning to have just as serious concerns about the United States Supreme Court as I do about the Canadian version.

[drummer]

How does this differ from claiming to have a Masters or a Ph.D. on a job application when you don't? How about presenting a completely fabricated career history? You are presenting an inaccurate representation of yourself that is fraudulent and can only be intended to mislead.

Then you will be fired, but not criminally prosecuted, which is what the US Supreme court was ruling on. The court is not saying that you have the right to lie (as the daily mail headline implies). It says you can't be criminally prosecuted for it because the first amendment protects your speech. But you may obviously face civil or legal consequences (lawsuits, loss of jobs etc).

[catonist]

Given FD's general support for free-speech, I would have to think that most people here would be applauding this ruling. I mean, come on. A law against lying? That's gotta be social-engineering run amok, wrapping itself in the banner of cheap pseudo-patriotism.

Imagine how enforcement of that law would work.

SOME LOUNGE LIZARD: Yeah, baby, I was in Iraq. Got the Medal Of Honor for saving my whole convoy from a land mine. Hung it above my waterbed. Wanna see?

FBI!! FREEZE!!

[semper fidelis]

Given FD's general support for free-speech, I would have to think that most people here would be applauding this ruling. I mean, come on. A law against lying? That's gotta be social-engineering run amok, wrapping itself in the banner of cheap pseudo-patriotism.

Imagine how enforcement of that law would work.

SOME LOUNGE LIZARD: Yeah, baby, I was in Iraq. Got the Medal Of Honor for saving my whole convoy from a land mine. Hung it above my waterbed. Wanna see?

FBI!! FREEZE!!

Frankly I'm surprised that any politician would support such a law. Wouldn't that be like turkeys voting for thanksgiving?