Should lying about receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor be illegal?
OTUS News
2012/05/11 17:09:40
- 4,436 votes
- Read all 22 opinions
- View Results and Demographics
|
|
|||||
|
3,270 votes
|
|
74% | |||
|
1,166 votes
|
|
26% | |||


















The federal courts are wrestling with a question of both liberty and patriotism: Does the First Amendment right to free speech protect people who lie about being war heroes?
At issue is a three-year-old federal law called the Stolen Valor Act that makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to falsely claim to have received a medal from the U.S. military. It is a crime even if the liar makes no effort to profit from his stolen glory.
Attorneys in Colorado and California are challenging the law on behalf of two men charged, saying the First Amendment protects almost all speech that doesn't hurt someone else. Neither man has been accused by prosecutors of seeking financial gain for himself.
Maybe I misunderstand the intent of the First Amendment, but I've always been under the impression that it protected political speech. I.e. Congress could make no law which stifled or prohibited political speech. The idea was to prevent the sitting government from essentially outlawing the speech of those who didn't agree with it.
So how is lying about a medal "political speech"? And why should a lie be protected anyway?
Of course, it shouldn't.
So let's trivialize the offense and exaggerate the "problem" shall ...
The federal courts are wrestling with a question of both liberty and patriotism: Does the First Amendment right to free speech protect people who lie about being war heroes?
At issue is a three-year-old federal law called the Stolen Valor Act that makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to falsely claim to have received a medal from the U.S. military. It is a crime even if the liar makes no effort to profit from his stolen glory.
Attorneys in Colorado and California are challenging the law on behalf of two men charged, saying the First Amendment protects almost all speech that doesn't hurt someone else. Neither man has been accused by prosecutors of seeking financial gain for himself.
Maybe I misunderstand the intent of the First Amendment, but I've always been under the impression that it protected political speech. I.e. Congress could make no law which stifled or prohibited political speech. The idea was to prevent the sitting government from essentially outlawing the speech of those who didn't agree with it.
So how is lying about a medal "political speech"? And why should a lie be protected anyway?
Of course, it shouldn't.
So let's trivialize the offense and exaggerate the "problem" shall we?
Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School who is not involved in the two cases, said the Stolen Valor Act raises serious constitutional questions because it in effect bans bragging or exaggerating about yourself.
"Half the pickup lines in bars across the country could be criminalized under that concept," he said.
(Well, I can’t disagree with that, but on another level, this Old Soldier could say; More than half the lines in political elections across the country could be criminalized under that concept. I have yet to meet a politician that has never been caught in a lie of some kind after he enters politics.)
And can you imagine what this could do to Obama?
http://www.blackfive.net/main...
Wearing it without earning it is an ass stomping offence.
The one who was claiming the valor of a Medal of Honor Recipient in my family didn't even surface until years after his funeral.
Another group that is shamefully a frequent abuser of the truth is religion. They too should be required to stick to the truth. After all it is their own rule so they should stick to it. If a religion endeavors in politics and/or deception they should lose their tax exempt status.