Supremes to decide if lying is protected speech.

Never did get the "harm" that accrues from having someone fraudulently claim to have earned an award. It is reasonable for the Services to make it a crime for a servicemember to wear an award or decoration that s/he hasn't earned, but for it to be a crime in the real world?

Shine a spot light on the liar and the harm is immediately gone, the luster is returned to the award, and the legitimate recipients probably gain stature in the exchange.
 
KingMerv00 said:
I assume he knows that. It was a figure of speech. He was saying that money gives you more power to influence public opinion, i.e. how reality is perceived.

I disagree with Thai's stance on the 1st Amendment here but there is no need to play semantics.
Click to expand...

And in the context (Thai's response to my comment), it's plain that is indeed how he meant it (i.e. figuratively).

If the liar is able to buy air time to make the lie, but the fact-checkers pointing out that he's a liar cannot, then what I suggested as a remedy to the problem wouldn't work. But as I mentioned, we're all free to pool resources to make speech acts, so we aren't actually limited in such a way that only the wealthy effectively have free speech rights.

So again, I'd say, the solution is more speech, not less speech. IMO, there is no legitimate state interest in enforcing respect for military honors at all, but certainly no such interest that outweighs the first amendment.
 
sarge said:
Never did get the "harm" that accrues from having someone fraudulently claim to have earned an award. It is reasonable for the Services to make it a crime for a servicemember to wear an award or decoration that s/he hasn't earned, but for it to be a crime in the real world?

Shine a spot light on the liar and the harm is immediately gone, the luster is returned to the award, and the legitimate recipients probably gain stature in the exchange.
Click to expand...

De acuerdo!

On the issue of harm (the damages element of fraud), I think people are assuming that because someone got a benefit from a lie that there are necessarily damages somehow. I dunno. But the way the Stolen Valor Act is written, the presumed harm is to respect for the medals.

In the statute, it says these false claims " damage the reputation and meaning of such decorations and medals."
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
De acuerdo!

On the issue of harm (the damages element of fraud), I think people are assuming that because someone got a benefit from a lie that there are necessarily damages somehow. I dunno. But the way the Stolen Valor Act is written, the presumed harm is to respect for the medals.

In the statute, it says these false claims " damage the reputation and meaning of such decorations and medals."
Click to expand...


Which assumes that there is some intrinsic, quantifiable value to that reputation and meaning.

It didn't seem to have much value for John Kerry. He might even have been better off without three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star when he was running for President.

They damn sure didn't help him any. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom