It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court Reviews Stolen Valor Act.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Soure here: news.yahoo.com...



WASHINGTON (AP) — Xavier Alvarez stood up at a public meeting and called himself a wounded war veteran who had received the top military award, the Medal of Honor. He was lying about his medal, his wounds and his military service, but he wasn't the first man to invent war exploits.

He was, however, one of the first people prosecuted under a 2006 federal law aimed at curbing false claims of military valor.

Concerns that the law improperly limits speech and turns people into criminals for things they say, rather than do, are at the heart of the Supreme Court's review of his case and the Stolen Valor Act.


So what does everyone think about this story. I will give some input later on, I just wanted to get this posted for all to see.




posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by usmc0311
 


I think that as long as you aren't attempting to use your fake medals for making money or currying political power...then you should not be punished. How many men here used white lies during dates to make themselves seem a little more, interesting, then you normally are?

At work I could check 100 resumes and find 99 claims that are barely the truth. Should these people be put into prison?



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I think this law was passed while the emotions from 9/11 were still quite high. It's such an offense to many people that they figure "there should be a law"... And so they made one.


I disagree with it. It's basically a law against lying. It's one thing to misrepresent one's self in an official capacity, but just a casual mention of winning a medal shouldn't be against the law. It violates free speech.



On July 16, 2010, a federal judge in Denver ruled the Stolen Valor Act is “facially unconstitutional” because it violates free speech and dismissed the criminal case against Strandlof who lied about being an Iraq war veteran.


Wiki

I await the Supreme Court's ruling.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think this law was passed while the emotions from 9/11 were still quite high. It's such an offense to many people that they figure "there should be a law"... And so they made one.


I disagree with it. It's basically a law against lying. It's one thing to misrepresent one's self in an official capacity, but just a casual mention of winning a medal shouldn't be against the law. It violates free speech.


Quite true, but I guess it comes down to what exactly he was saying at a public meeting. Was the gentleman trying to sway the minds of the meeting to vote one way or another; under the guise of an emotional argument using false facts?

Either way, it shouldn't be unlawful -- hell there are probably a lot of public servants utilizing little white lies about their military service to garner vote. The problem is much deeper; we as a society just brush it off and think that said person is still that of character.

Now, if local Public houses want to institute some by-laws that enter into the record that Mr. So-and-So have been known to lie I would be all for it. But federal law? Nope.

Given the recent string of cases that have clearly been found in the name of the individual, my hopes are high that the Supreme Court will once again tell the Federal Government they were wrong.
edit on 20-2-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I better quell my lines at the local bar then about how I was a pilot in the military. It is just easier than explaining what I actually worked on and the blank stare that it produces.

But does the context and the situation matter here? Just bring back tar and feathering; the man that lied about his service and merit should be shunned from his community for trying to utilize an emotional argument under false pretenses.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I know it seems that this is about those who would falsely claim the recognition of those who served our communities and country in order to gain something for their ego...or even their pockets. If it did garner something for them monetarily, I think the notion of 'stolen' may hold water. otherwise it seems a sad and pitiful problem with the speaker....

... but I can't help wonder about the use of this kind of statement used by politicians. Many of them, I believe, may not even be aware of their reputations being inflated by their 'public relations' teams and other 'supporting' interests. I can't imagine the law extending to them. Or would they claim they never do that?

It is shameful how politically relevant service members get all sorts of accolades and even service awards for actions they may not have exactly been responsible for... I have seen it first hand. I think this kind of law is a step in the right direction; but far from adequate to protect those who have had their deeds cited for another; because it was valuable career fodder for them; and not considered so for the actual serviceman or woman who truly deserved it.

just my $.02



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join