Supremes to decide if lying is protected speech.

WildCat said:
No, they just release all their rulings in June.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Court starts its term in October and ends its term in June. The Court might release a decision or two in October, a few more in November, a few more in December, a few more in January (Citizens United was a January decision), and so on. The "hardest" or most contentious cases often get more time for consideration (perhaps due to point-and-counterpoint bandying within the Court itself), and get released near the end of term in June.
 
Brown said:
Actually, the Court starts its term in October and ends its term in June. The Court might release a decision or two in October, a few more in November, a few more in December, a few more in January (Citizens United was a January decision), and so on. The "hardest" or most contentious cases often get more time for consideration (perhaps due to point-and-counterpoint bandying within the Court itself), and get released near the end of term in June.
Click to expand...
OK, thanks. I guess that's why it seems like they all get released in June, because the others aren't as memorable!
 
Peephole said:
Does the US Supreme Court work one week a year or something?
Click to expand...

Have you read some of these decisions? After the justices vote, they then write up the opinions and exchange them around, then modify them (sometimes in response to one another)--and sometimes even change their position at that late time. . .

To me it looks like an enormous amount of work.

ETA: And they do quite a few of them. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx?Term=11
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
OK, thanks. I guess that's why it seems like they all get released in June, because the others aren't as memorable!
Click to expand...

There have been at least a handful that were pretty widely covered in national news media. U.S. v. Jones (attaching the GPS device) comes to mind. It was delivered in January.
 
According to the Scotusblog live blog, the Court has affirmed the 9th Circuit in Alvarez, striking down the Stolen Valor Act as violating the First Amendment.
 
As I predicted, I'm not suprised... :D

The level of harm from lying about being a doctor or a police officer is demonstrable... people can die.

The harm from choosing between a politician who lies about fixing the budget and a politician who lies about being a war hero, is less clear, which balances out against using the law against satire, and so on.

And the remedy remains, if someone is caught lying about their military service, fire them or recall them, or don't vote for them next time...
 
The point I've argued with respect to this law is that people lie. Often. For material benefit. And to propose that a simple lie (that does not perpetrate a fraudulent financial transaction or involve lying under oath) is not protected by the first amendment is to suggest that any such lie can be criminalized.

That's not a proposition of which I'm very fond.

Does anyone else want the government to be able to criminalize "hey baby, you know I love you; now let's go do it"?
 
I cannot get the links to this opinion (there are two links on the US Supreme Court web site) to work.
 
That's too bad, I was looking forward to seeing all of Congress imprisoned.
 
This is sad...no one should be able to lie about receiving military honors. It spits in the face of our REAL heroes in uniform!

crimresearch said:
And the remedy remains, if someone is caught lying about their military service, fire them or recall them, or don't vote for them next time...
Click to expand...

I vote for letting your local vets know so that they can get a group of big burly vets together to go and "explain the error of their ways" to the liar...slowly and painfully...
 
Last edited:
crimresearch said:
The harm from choosing between a politician who lies about fixing the budget and a politician who lies about being a war hero, is less clear, which balances out against using the law against satire, and so on.

And the remedy remains, if someone is caught lying about their military service, fire them or recall them, or don't vote for them next time...
Click to expand...

Exactly. The solution is more free speech (like calling the liar a liar) not less!

IMO, there is no state interest at all in compelling respect for military awards--at the very least there is no such interest that outweighs free speech. I'd lump this law right in there with respect for the flag laws and the state law we discussed a while back that prohibited schools from satirizing the Star Spangled Banner.

You can't honestly claim to be honoring or respecting freedom by infringing it!
 
Muldur said:
I vote for letting your local vets know so that they can get a group of big burly vets together to go and "explain the error of their ways" to the liar...slowly and painfully...
Click to expand...

I hope you're just kidding because there is a very clear difference between acts of violence and speech acts.

Or are you only in favor of free speech as long as it's speech of which you approve?
 
Muldur said:
This is sad...no one should be able to lie about receiving military honors. It spits in the face of our REAL heroes in uniform!



I vote for letting your local vets know so that they can get a group of big burly vets together to go and "explain the error of their ways" to the liar...slowly and painfully...
Click to expand...
One of the reason that the Wall Of Shame shut down, was that there weren't enough real Navy Seals to debunk and expose the *serious* fakes, much less the garden variety posers.
 
If congress can't pass a law against lying, can the states?

Where does the First Amendment come in vs lying to a police officer? Should I invoke the 1st along with the 5th? Or lying in court? Lessee, "Do you swear... " answered by "No, I don't. Persuant to SCOTUS vs Stolen Valor Act, I reserve the right to invoke my 1st amendment right to lie". Cool !

I don't recall the exact wording of the 1st, but I don't think there was any specific mention of Valor Awards, so "The Right to Lie" must be broader than that...
 
I see C.S. is just diving right in to exercise his First Amendment Rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom