• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

supreme court stolen valor decision due soon

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Wade

Wade

FeralNormal master
next week should be an interesting one supreme court wise w/many decisions expected to be handed down, including the one on everybody's minds, obamacare. also due to be decided on is arizona immigration, and as per the headline , the fcc/obsenity law but that was actually decided on today (thursday) but one that would be of much interest to don and a subject of past discussions in this forum, stolen valor, more precisely whether a false claim(lie) about military valor, currently a crime, is unconstitutional and a right that should be protected and afforded to everyone under the first admendement...we actually need 9 people to determine this for us?

from : What’s Left for Supreme Court? Health Reform, Immigration, Stolen Valor and the ‘F’ Word - ABC News

Stolen Valor Act
The court will decide whether the Stolen Valor Act, a 2006 law that makes it a crime to lie about receiving military awards, is unconstitutional. The law is challenged by Xavier Alvarez, who, while serving as a public official in California, introduced himself to an audience by saying, “I’m a retired Marine for 25 years. I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.”
Alvarez, one of the first people prosecuted under the law, had never even served in the military. His lawyer admits that Alvarez is a liar, but says the Stolen Valor Act goes too far and violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The government stresses the law fits into a narrow category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. (U.S. v. Alvarez)
 
I have some pretty strong feelings on stolen valor, and im a little disapointed with how its treated in the US, why bother to pass a law if you havent got the conviction to follow through and punish those who violate it.
Ive seen waaaay to many people get let off for what imo is a real crime, and one that should attract prosecution and punsishment.

The sacrifices made by those who serve, sometimes the ultimate sacrifice, is worthy of our respect and admiration, To try to steal that from those who have earned it the hard way, cannot devalue or diminish it, but nor does it do it any service whatsoever.

A hundred SV fraudsters cant diminish the hounour or valor of a single genuine veteran, they cant steal that, but even the attempt at stealing what was never theirs is contemptable and should be imo dealt with by the full measure of the law.

The justice system needs to start punishing these frauds, If for no other reason than to confirm loud and clear that we do value those who have earned it the hard way
 
someone pretending to be someone or something that they're not, didn't i just take part in a thread that dealt on these issues?
 
It is interesting to note that where I live you would get nailed to a post and publicly beaten metaphorically speaking for wearing a medal or a pip that was not granted to you (this has happened and the public will tear the offender apart).
Stolen Valor is taken very seriously here as it is in Australia as far as I know.
 
Ah gee, you may as well have said "nantucket" to a one legged pirate.
the words stolen valor set me off everytime.

As i alluded to above ,the principle of the matter is not so much about punishing the miserable bastards who think buying a uniform and medals on ebay is a fun thing to do, to pose as heros and accept the thanks and occasional free beer they would not otherwise have ever deserved.

Its about sending a clear message to the real heros, we dont take your sacrifice lightly.
That your honour and valor is not a trivial thing, that we the people will defend it with the same fidelity that you defended us.
 
I'm all for free speech but I really think protecting the ability of someone to outright lie about something as serious as having fought and bled for this country is taking it a step to far. As other posters have said, it completely diminishes the very real sacrifices of true vets. It amazes me that someone would stoop that low. Some people are really fucked up.
 
Slightly buried In the news yesterday was the 6-3 vote striking down ( although on the news programs I was listening to there was a fair amount of discussion on this ruling as well)

It probably wouldn't have been a bad idea to modify the law before it got to the supreme court. You can't very well go charging every person that claims he served or was a seal (which from time to time seems to serve as a regular bar pick up line) especially if he's had a few or like martinez a pathological liar BUT to use such a lie to gain advantage in a hiring or advancement especially at the expense of someone that DID serve is deserving of some serious prosecution. We have a labyrinth like tax code that has exceptions that would take a lifetime to go through, why not just do the same here add a condition addressing the circumstances of the lie, if it's to achieve any fiduciary advancement, prosecute them.
 
Poor decision imo
Impersonate a police officer and you get prosecuted
Impersonate a vet....... nothing

They want to talk the talk, make em walk the walk pack em off to bootcamp as a penalty.

Putting on the medals and uniform should be considered an act of volunteering
 
Back
Top