Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Thank you. That's what I've been trying to say all along. LOL
Md. judge rules Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional
- Thread starter Camper
- Start date
Thank you. That's what I've been trying to say all along. LOL
tbubster
Seasoned Expediter
In post 11 greg calls it protected free speech under the 1st amendment.Then in post # 23 you talk about it being a 1st amendment issue.When people say its a free speech issue they turn it into a constitutional issue.If a man is protected by the 1st amendent from one then he is protected by it from them all.I dont like the fact that they make laws like this either more over I dont like the fact that people think this is a right protected by the constitution of the fact that there is even a need for laws like this.
I am just SO confused.How is criminal behavior protected under the Constitution?
Maybe it is generational, I just have a totally different way of looking at everything.
Feel the same way its not.also done with this issue.
purgoose10
Veteran Expediter
The judge is obviously left handed, left wing well just plain left. Those people just don't think right. They do everything they can to discredit our military. None of those left handed snot blowing, face the north at 2 pm and bow down and #%&*() just don't get it. It's all that bad dope they got when they were kids.
It's okay to abort kids but not okay to fry a killer. They all will shortly start reading the Koran (don't know how to spell it) and start talking giberish. My opinion, kill them all and let God sort it out.
Your allowed one rant a day. This is mine.
It's okay to abort kids but not okay to fry a killer. They all will shortly start reading the Koran (don't know how to spell it) and start talking giberish. My opinion, kill them all and let God sort it out.
Your allowed one rant a day. This is mine.
Last edited:
Okie doke
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
Donna Mokie OOHIE OOCHIE BOO!!
And an excellent rant it was, too.
And an excellent rant it was, too.
And right on target as well!
greg334
Veteran Expediter
TO MAKE IT CLEAR .. the courts made this a consitutional issue, not me or anyone here.
The title of the thread says it all ...
Md. judge rules Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional
I want to know where the fake takes a penny of money from those who are deserving?
I don't see this as an issue with the VA system even though I don't think a few deserve any care but regardless it isn't about pensions, about benefits but of third party things handed to those who served in uniform and I hope in combat.
Well you got it all twisted, lying isn't impacting anyone unless someone acts on the lie. In this case Glock didn't do what they should have done and are to blame, and yes there is a right to lie as much as there is a right to cuss and a right to have an opinion. Yelling fire in a crowded room is not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Nope did not serve in our military but I do NOT appreciate any act that ties one thing to the freedoms we have to qualify anyone that freedom by any means, period. This does include other things and I am simply standing on the position that any thing that restricts our rights damages all of us more than it helps any one group.
So?
I mean it isn't like he has inflicted damage to any one person or prevented any negitive thing from happening to any one person.
Actually I lump this guy in with any other con-artist, no more worse than the person who screws some old lady out of their savings to talk to their dead husband.
Well here is how it works, the first amendment says that government can't abridge freedom of speech, which means they can't judge what someone says or how they say is unless it damages other people's rights. Yelling fire in a crowded room has an effect that can cause death and injury, so that is a direct result to the yelling fire. In this case, the person said "I am a vet, I have ten purple hearts" and the Glock people took at face value, which is not the fault of the person but that of glock. SO the courts affirmed that the government does not have the right to restrict speech in this way because they can't define the scope of the law to exclude things that can restrict the speech to everyone. In other words it is the government that can use the law to do other things which is the foundation of the amendment in the first place to restrict the government.
If you want a good example, the case of the Westboro Baptist Church is one of the best. I think the ACLU vs. Skokie is another one.
Nope not a generational thing unless you were born before 1840.
The act of lying is not a criminal act, the act of continuing to lie to trick people with a specific group of thing is the problem and when he accepted the money and other things under the guise of being something he is not, he committed fraud, but even then it raises a question of what the rules to participate were and how did they vet the people who entered the contest. Again going back to the fault is glock, not the person.
Well hate to break the news to you but if this reaches the supreme court, it may be a case where the right leaning judges are going to up hold the lower courts decision based on the constitutionality of the case, whether or not the government has the right to pursue criminal charges based on speech.
No matter how you look at it, the best thing to do is forget about BS laws like this and start having companies like Glock enforce better rules.
The title of the thread says it all ...
Md. judge rules Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional
I want to know where the fake takes a penny of money from those who are deserving?
I don't see this as an issue with the VA system even though I don't think a few deserve any care but regardless it isn't about pensions, about benefits but of third party things handed to those who served in uniform and I hope in combat.
Well you got it all twisted, lying isn't impacting anyone unless someone acts on the lie. In this case Glock didn't do what they should have done and are to blame, and yes there is a right to lie as much as there is a right to cuss and a right to have an opinion. Yelling fire in a crowded room is not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Nope did not serve in our military but I do NOT appreciate any act that ties one thing to the freedoms we have to qualify anyone that freedom by any means, period. This does include other things and I am simply standing on the position that any thing that restricts our rights damages all of us more than it helps any one group.
So?
I mean it isn't like he has inflicted damage to any one person or prevented any negitive thing from happening to any one person.
Actually I lump this guy in with any other con-artist, no more worse than the person who screws some old lady out of their savings to talk to their dead husband.
Well here is how it works, the first amendment says that government can't abridge freedom of speech, which means they can't judge what someone says or how they say is unless it damages other people's rights. Yelling fire in a crowded room has an effect that can cause death and injury, so that is a direct result to the yelling fire. In this case, the person said "I am a vet, I have ten purple hearts" and the Glock people took at face value, which is not the fault of the person but that of glock. SO the courts affirmed that the government does not have the right to restrict speech in this way because they can't define the scope of the law to exclude things that can restrict the speech to everyone. In other words it is the government that can use the law to do other things which is the foundation of the amendment in the first place to restrict the government.
If you want a good example, the case of the Westboro Baptist Church is one of the best. I think the ACLU vs. Skokie is another one.
I am just SO confused.
Maybe it is generational, I just have a totally different way of looking at everything.
Nope not a generational thing unless you were born before 1840.
The act of lying is not a criminal act, the act of continuing to lie to trick people with a specific group of thing is the problem and when he accepted the money and other things under the guise of being something he is not, he committed fraud, but even then it raises a question of what the rules to participate were and how did they vet the people who entered the contest. Again going back to the fault is glock, not the person.
Well hate to break the news to you but if this reaches the supreme court, it may be a case where the right leaning judges are going to up hold the lower courts decision based on the constitutionality of the case, whether or not the government has the right to pursue criminal charges based on speech.
No matter how you look at it, the best thing to do is forget about BS laws like this and start having companies like Glock enforce better rules.
Please don't bring me into this any more. I will NOT play the game.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
What game?
I am not playing a game, you all are saying the same thing and expect the same thing that you are opposing. You and others scream about Obama and all that is being done to our country but then when faced with an issue which goes directly to the core of our basic freedom, many act as if it is alright to do the same thing as Obama and the left does.
I ask this question -
who was harmed?
I don't see any one person being harmed by any other person when it comes to this subject.
I got a lecture about honor, valor this very subject this afternoon and that was from a Silver Star recipient who was seriously wounded. His point was clear, this is a trivial issue and it damages the same rights that he and others believe in.
He made a very good point that the abstract is used with these laws and their creation and the reality is ignored. The reality is opening the door for more damaging things down the line.
So there isn't a game, I am engaging everyone because I see a bit of hypocritical opinions of sorts among many of you when it comes to rights, freedoms and the government.
I am not playing a game, you all are saying the same thing and expect the same thing that you are opposing. You and others scream about Obama and all that is being done to our country but then when faced with an issue which goes directly to the core of our basic freedom, many act as if it is alright to do the same thing as Obama and the left does.
I ask this question -
who was harmed?
I don't see any one person being harmed by any other person when it comes to this subject.
I got a lecture about honor, valor this very subject this afternoon and that was from a Silver Star recipient who was seriously wounded. His point was clear, this is a trivial issue and it damages the same rights that he and others believe in.
He made a very good point that the abstract is used with these laws and their creation and the reality is ignored. The reality is opening the door for more damaging things down the line.
So there isn't a game, I am engaging everyone because I see a bit of hypocritical opinions of sorts among many of you when it comes to rights, freedoms and the government.
The snow stopped at Comerica Park and the game is started. I HOPE our Festival is NOT rained on and no volcanoes mess with us.
Say goodnight Sammy.
Say goodnight Sammy.
Say goodbye to any authority to tell anyone they're 'off topic'.....
On topic: Greg is 100% right - saying one is a decorated vet is protected by freedom of speech, even if it's a lie. [Is that crazy Reverend who protests at funerals telling the truth?]
The idea of stealing valor is just silly - only the symbol representing it can be stolen [theft], and if used for financial gain, that's fraud.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Because some people want 'special' laws for 'special' people. The left has been doing the same for years. In this case, the right is pushing the 'you can be a patriot, just like me' bandwagon.
Camper
Not a Member
No T-Hawk,
This isn't about "special laws for special people". This is about fraud and yes it's virtual theft, contrary to what others on this thread think.
I dont expect those who didnt serve to fully understand the gravity of this issue. However, this punk did serve and he knew the effect his actions had on others.
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
But if there's laws on the book already for fraud...
Exactly. And it's why this court case is about Constitutional free speech and not about fraud. The law was passed with with well-worn liberal "feel good" intentions to protect the feelings of a select group of people, despite there already being laws on the books which deal with fraud. The law makes it so that you cannot make the false claim, even if you do nothing fraudulent with the claim. In other words, it restricts free speech.
Incidentally pallud, if making the claim resulted in, or would likely result in a public panic, then and only then could it be restricted for the same reason as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Falsely claiming to be a decorated military veteran doesn't do that.
Camper
Not a Member
No, no it wasn't. Again, this issue and the law in question have nothing to do with any type of ideological agenda.
If you had any real first hand appreciation of what this "select group" endured to earn the honor associated with these medals, you'd understand that this isn't merely about giving a "select group" protected class status, not by a long shot, pal.
I've said all I'm going to say on this matter, so I'm through with this being debated 8 different ways to Sunday.
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Ok, this guy was "awarded" a "Annual" award from Glock that they give to someone they "choose" as their "Hero of the Year"...ok so was this guy the only one that they looked at for this award in the year they gave it to him?? If they looked at others, who finished 2nd???
Of course it is. It's practically a definition example of an ideological agenda. The whole notion of "stolen valor" is purely ideological. It was introduced and passed solely to protect the reputation and meaning of military heroism medals, and greatly broadened the existing law preventing the unauthorized manufacturing, selling or wearing of military decorations, service badges and medals. The intent clearly (and as was stated in Congressional debate at the time) was to motivate and honor the troops. But that can certainly be done without restricting free speech, especially free speech which doesn't enlist damages. The law currently requires no victim or damages be done, only the uttering of the speech. That's a classic "I don't like what you have to say, therefore you can't say it," which reeks of ideology.
As one justice noted, if the Stolen Valor Act were held to be Constitutional, then it will completely remove the Constitutional bar (because of the precedent it sets) to have laws enacted that would criminalize everyday lies. It's that slippery slope people so often talk about. "There would be no constitutional bar to criminalizing lying about one’s height, weight, age, or financial status on Match.com or Facebook, or falsely representing to one’s mother that one does not smoke, drink alcoholic beverages, is a virgin, or has not exceeded the speed limit while driving on the freeway. The sad fact is, most people lie about some aspects of their lives from time to time,” Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr., wrote for the majority in the 9th Circuit case (yeah, yeah, I know, it's the 9th Circuit, and they're bat crap crazy, but even a bat crap crazy blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then). But the point is, criminalizing speech is a tricky business, and Congress knows it, which is why they debated it, and it's also why they have an amendment waiting in the wings which adds the "for personal gain" caveat to the existing law. Ironically, if and when "for personal gain" is added to the law, the law will then become just another law to combat, ta-da, fraud.
If by "any real first hand appreciation" you mean being awarded a military heroism medal, no, I don't have that. But that doesn't mean I don't have other types of first hand appreciation of the honor associated with those types of medals, because I do.
OK. Fortunately, the Supreme Court will have the final say, regardless, then we won't have to debate it at all.