Supremes to decide if lying is protected speech.

[Ziggurat]

If the SCOTUS were to rule that it is illegal to lie when one runs for public office, then half of Congress would be locked up.

But that's not what they would be ruling. They would be ruling about whether or not this specific form of lying can be made illegal. There remains no general law against lying when running for office, so it will remain legal in general. And a ruling that this form of lying can be constitutionally prohibited doesn't necessarily mean that all forms of lying while running for office can be constitutionally prohibited. And that's ignoring the problem that many forms of political lies cannot be objectively distinguished from ignorance.

Hmmm, might not be such a bad thing

Be careful what you wish for, and remember than any law passed to prevent lying while running for office will be passed by people already in office. They are unlikely to actually hobble themselves, but they certainly might make life harder for challengers.

 

[daredelvis]

A small correction. Reagan didn't try to award a Medal of Honor to a fictional character, merely told the (fictional) story of the (fictional) person winning the award.

http://www.snopes.com/glurge/military/ridedown.asp

But he did often claim to have visited Nazi death camps.

Daredelvis

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So lying to get money is wrong, but lying to get power+money is ok?

Again, how do you define "ok"?


Passing laws against fraud is constitutional, but passing laws that would restrict protected political speech is not.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If a lie causes much harm, even death to many people, shouldn't it be illegal?

Again, I think you're talking about something other than what the SCOTUS is looking at. (And you're begging the question at that, I believe. If you're talking about incitement, there is a strict test to determine whether a speech act is the crime of incitement: it requires there to be intention, imminence and likelihood.)

But back to the question at hand, in evaluating which candidate to vote for, do you think the voters should or should not have the authority to decide who is most honest?

 

[ponderingturtle]

You mean the "righties" such as the ACLU?

Personally, I'm a lefty who is leery of any attempt to minimize or reduce First Amendment protections.

Yep like if I say I can cure cancer and produce fake evidence to support it that is protected free speech. The Enzite people should appeal to the supreme court. Also purgery should be decriminalized.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yep like if I say I can cure cancer and produce fake evidence to support it that is protected free speech.

No. The claim to cure cancer is not protected political speech. [ETA: If you meant something about taking people's money through deception, that is fraud and it is already a crime.]

Also purgery [sic] should be decriminalized.

Why decriminalize perjury? That doesn't follow from the observation that political speech is protected.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is it the lie that causes harm, or people who are dumb enough to believe it? Should GW Bush be arrested for telling lies about WMDs which led to the deaths of thousands of people? (You don't have to answer, TBK, I know what you think.)

I agree, though, that fraud should be prosecuted.

So why is one form of lying for personal gain ok and not the other? Why shouldn't consumers be ware just like voters?

 

[ponderingturtle]

No. The claim to cure cancer is not protected political speech. [ETA: If you meant something about taking people's money through deception, that is fraud and it is already a crime.]

And so is lying about your qualifications to get a job. But hey politicians are legally protected fraudsters just like the constitution protects their right to insider trading.

 

[eeyore1954]

Ha! In poker, bluffing and sandbagging are part of the game. Poker players are honest in that they pay when they lose. That is, when they place or call a bet, it is a promise to cede that money to the winner of the hand, and they keep this promise.


That's not how I read it. The snippet quoted in the OP seems to indicate that he said he won the medal when he was running for office. It says he made the claim as part of his "resume" while running for office. (I presume that's a figurative "resume". It was just how he sold himself to the public while he was running for office.)

I got this from a different article apparently.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-are-a-crime/2012/02/20/gIQAnoctOR_story.html

Alvarez made his claims by way of introducing himself as an elected member of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in Pomona, Calif. There is nothing to suggest that he received anything in exchange or that listeners especially believed him.

Also of interest is he is currently in jail for some sort of fraud against Pomona and he also has made a living out of lying. I believe he saved an ambassador in Iran also.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So why is one form of lying for personal gain ok and not the other? Why shouldn't consumers be ware [sic] just like voters?

See the Annenberg article I linked to in my first post on this thread. It explains the issue of protected political speech.

[ETA: And for what it's worth, consumers/buyers should be wary also. That's the meaning of caveat emptor.]

And so is lying about your qualifications to get a job. But hey politicians are legally protected fraudsters just like the constitution protects their right to insider trading.

But hey that's not true. Fraud is very clearly defined.

And you're still conflating the issue of whether or not a person should be held responsible for their speech acts (such as lying on a job application) to the question of whether or not we can pass laws prohibiting those speech acts.

What exactly is the law prohibiting lying in campaign speech that you would support? Is there a way to do it without harming free speech rights that should be protected?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I got this from a different article apparently.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-are-a-crime/2012/02/20/gIQAnoctOR_story.html

Yes, this story is at odds with the story in the OP. This one says, "Alvarez made his claims by way of introducing himself as an elected member of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in Pomona, Calif. There is nothing to suggest that he received anything in exchange or that listeners especially believed him."

The story in the OP says he made the claims while running for office (which implies it was in part how he got the office).

At any rate, it's irrelevant whether or not he won the office (or anything else) because he was believed. The Stolen Valor Act's justification is that merely lying about military achievements damages "the reputation and meaning of such decorations and medals".

I see nothing in the law that limits prosecution to those who gained something or even to those who were likely or reasonably believed.

It is different in that regard from conventional fraud statutes.

Also of interest is he is currently in jail for some sort of fraud against Pomona and he also has made a living out of lying. I believe he saved an ambassador in Iran also.

Yep, he's a bad guy who belongs in jail. Trouble is the Stolen Valor Act isn't limited to bad guys who have been convicted of conventional fraud. I think it's an unnecessary law that threatens free speech rights.

 

[crimresearch]

In 2007, Respondent Xavier Alvarez was serving as an elected member of the Board of Directors of the Three Valleys Water District in Claremont, California. During a board meeting, Alvarez stated to his fellow members: “I’m a retired marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. I'm still around.” This statement was a lie—he never served in the marines or received a Medal of Honor. In fact, Alvarez had frequently lied about his accomplishments in the past, often fabricating sensationalistic stories about his purported military service.
After Alvarez made his untruthful statement in the board meeting, the Federal Bureau of Investigation received a recording of the statement, and initiated a proceeding against Alvarez in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for violating the Stolen Valor Act. Specifically, Alvarez was charged with violating provisions 18 U.S.C. §§ 704(b) and (c)(1) of the Act. Alvarez was subsequently convicted of these violations. The charge against Alvarez emphasized the fact that he knew he was lying when he stated that he had received a Medal of Honor.

Depending on why he was making that claim on the record at an official government meeting, it would be a material representation.

And the chances of the Supreme Court taking this case without bothering to consider the facts and details, or whether or not Alvarez was even in violation of the Act, are slim to none.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Depending on why he was making that claim on the record at an official government meeting, it would be a material representation.

I agree that such things ought be considered, but there is nothing in the law that considers it.

(b) False Claims About Receipt of Military Decorations or Medals.— Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(c) Enhanced Penalty for Offenses Involving Congressional Medal of Honor.—
(1) In general.— If a decoration or medal involved in an offense under subsection (a) or (b) is a Congressional Medal of Honor, in lieu of the punishment provided in that subsection, the offender shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both

It's a pretty broad and sweeping law, certainly not limited to material presentations at an official government meeting.

There's a federal court decision finding the law unconstitutional in another case (U.S. v. Strandlof in the 10th District), and the current decision on Alvarez in the 9th district does the same*. The Obama administration's decision to pursue the appeal might get it to the SCOTUS.

*Effectively, that is. The 9th District Court refused to hear the case but issued a concurrence of the lower court's decision.

 

[crimresearch]

I agree that such things ought be considered, but there is nothing in the law that considers it.

Nothing that you can find, is not necessarily the same as 'not in there at all'.

 

[3point14]

Does Diana Ross get the casting vote?

Darn you to heck, that's word-for-word what went though my mind when I read the title.

 

[crimresearch]

I'd rather hear the 'Supremes' pun than the boob-tube ping of 'SCOTUS'... The words 'President Of The United States' do appear in the Constitution, the other acronym cannot be constructed from the wording for 'One Supreme Court'.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nothing that you can find, is not neccessarily the same as 'not in there at all'.

I quoted the entire section of law the case is based on. (The rest of the law isn't much longer.)

Can you show me where it is limited to people who have gained something from making such a false claim?

Again, in the justification for the law (Section 2 of the Bill that passed Congress), the "Findings", it says that merely making these false claims damages "the reputation and meaning of such decorations and medals". I think it's clear that this crime is not tied or limited to any enrichment or gain on the part of the person making the false claim.

 

[crimresearch]

I quoted the entire section of law the suit is based on. (The rest of the law isn't much longer.)

Can you show me where it is limited to people who have gained something from making such a false claim?

Again, in the justification for the law (Section 2 of the Bill that passed Congress), the "Findings", it says that merely making these false claims damages "the reputation and meaning of such decorations and medals". I think it's clear that this crime is not tied or limited to any enrichment or gain on the part of the person making the false claim.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=196&invol=1

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd rather hear the 'Supremes' pun than the boob-tube ping of 'SCOTUS'... The words 'President Of The United States' do appear in the Constitution, the other acronym cannot be constructed from the wording for 'One Supreme Court'.

SCOTUS doesn't bother me. Since there are also state Supreme Courts, I think that acronym is a bit more precise.

 

[Brown]

As of this writing, the argument transcript is not available. Transcript web site. The audio of the oral argument is expected to be available at the US Supreme Court web site soon, too.

According to initial reports, the discussion among the justices was "spirited."

Watch out, Tom Hanks. I heard you wore one of those medals in one of your movies (and the footage of you getting the medal from Lyndon Johnson was faked), even though you weren't entitled to wear it.