SwiftVets.com

LewWaters

Me#1You#10 · Site Admin Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 6503

TEWSPilot · Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:38 pm Post subject:

Besides all the obvious reasons why the act was signed into law, is there "no compelling government interest" in preventing stealing veteran's benefits and services and preventing a fraud from falsely receiving preferential hiring consideration where military service is a factor? As with most court decisions these days, this one is absurd.
_________________
Find the perfect babysitter, petsitter, or tutor -- today!

GoophyDog · Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:00 pm Post subject:

They had to start somewhere - what with the various politicians falsely claiming service or expanding on what they really did.
_________________
Why ask? Because it needs asking.

TEWSPilot · Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:55 am Post subject:

OK, in that case, I'll pretend I'm a Supreme Court Justice and then I'll start ruling that........
_________________
Find the perfect babysitter, petsitter, or tutor -- today!

Wing Wiper · Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:16 am Post subject:

Well, I guess I can start telling people that I'm a Rear Admiral now.
That took long enough, I was getting worried that I topped out at E4. Rolling Eyes

Schadow · Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:36 pm Post subject:

The Ninth Circuit predictably has ruled similarly in a case of a guy claiming a MoH:

From the SF Chronicle

(08-17) 18:48 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal law making it a crime to lie about receiving the Medal of Honor or other military decorations violates freedom of speech, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

Although a Southern California water board member convicted of violating the Stolen Valor Act made "deliberate and despicable" claims that he had received the Medal of Honor, the Constitution prohibits the government from prosecuting someone for merely lying, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said in a 2-1 ruling.

"The right to speak and write whatever one chooses - including, to some degree, worthless, offensive and demonstrable untruths - without cowering in fear of a powerful government is, in our view, an essential component of the protection afforded by the First Amendment," Judge Milan Smith said in the majority opinion.

If lying about a medal can be classified as a crime, Smith said, so can lying about one's age, misrepresenting one's financial status on Facebook, or telling one's mother falsehoods about drinking, smoking or sex.

Dissenting Judge Jay Bybee said the Constitution does not protect knowingly false speech. He said the lies told by Xavier Alvarez "dishonor ... every service member who has been decorated in any way, and every American now serving."

Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54

TEWSPilot · Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:46 pm Post subject:

....ummmm, try lying under oath in a court of law and see what happens. Do these "judges" even know how to read laws, let alone rule on them?
_________________
Find the perfect babysitter, petsitter, or tutor -- today!

GoophyDog · Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:59 pm Post subject:

Hmmm,

Title 5, USC 1001 - (I think) making a false statement to investigator.

Local ordinances where giving a false name is obstruction.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater.

And since the MOH does contain benefits, wouldn't that be a false claim for those benefits?

Frankly, considering this is the 9th circuit, I think this one might go a tad farther up the line.
_________________
Why ask? Because it needs asking.