CNN: Justices to hear case over lying about receiving military medals:

For a non-legal kinda girl, how long before the decision will be known? Anybody gonna guess what it will be, or what the split, if any, will be?

ETA: Oh wait, they just decided to hear the case. Sorry, I didn't read it well.

What's the charge for lying about being offered a Rhodes Scholarship?

What kind of Dumbass lies about the easiest to verify military award ? It's not like there are hundreds of thousands of recipients running around, and that you'd be able to get 'lost in the clutter' of MOH recipients.

Kansas City Star cartoonist Lee Judge gave us this (and pissed off a few tea baggers around here):

A similar case was heard by the 10th Circuit that ruled 2-1 the Stolen Valor Act is constitutional.

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_19839419
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-1358.pdf

I simply don't see how this passes Constitutional muster. It is punishing pure speech because of its content.

It is in a zone of speech (lies) that is of very little worth and is barely protectable. I think it could easily be criminalized if the speech were to obtain money, office or other advantage. The law might pass constitutional muster if it involved conduct that only partly constituted speech, such as the wearing of medals with the intent to convey the false impression of military valor.

The problem is that it criminalizes the mere false claim of military valor, including the idle boasting of Commander McBragg. Enforced literally, it would send your crazy uncle who makes wild boasts in a bar to prison. If the general principle the law stands, there would be no constitutional prohibition on a law criminalizing telling big fish stories in a bar. The only First Amendment dimension differing between the two such laws would be the subject matter (fish versus military valor) of the lie.

I don't see how even essentially worthless speech like lies can be prohibited without tying them to a concrete harm or threat of harm.

Being from a military fambly, I hate to agree with Loh, dammit.

Except he's making a strong as hell argument.

The oral argument audio along with a transcript is availableat the following link.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argume ... ent=11-210

I enjoyed Scalia's comments which began at approximately the 20:30 mark (or page 20).

I think that the only course of action to take is to expose and ridicule these clowns. Let the court of public opinion take care of them.

Justice Kagan asked an interesting question regarding the government's ability to punish liars.

Some great news for Cordwood and Orly:



http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/ho ... -care-law/

Kennedy, from opinion.
KENNEDY announced the judgment of theCourt and delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join.
"Lying was his habit. Xavier Alvarez, the respondent here, lied when he said that he played hockey for theDetroit Red Wings and that he once married a starlet fromMexico. But when he lied in announcing he held the Congressional
Medal of Honor, respondent ventured onto new ground; for that lie violates a federal criminal statute, theStolen Valor Act of 2005. 18 U. S. C. §704"

Shouldn't judges write "Lying IS Orly's habit"

Nicely written. The guy has a future.

Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissented.

Figures.

I had agreed with this law but trust that soldiers and veterans will find some other way to expose scumbags who dishonor their service. Ads in the hometown newspaper might work.

I never agreed with this law. I didn't feel it was necessarily a mortal blow to the First Amendment if upheld, since false speech about military service is speech of very little to no value, and if the compelling government interest in restricting such speech is tied to the vital nature of the integrity of the military, there is little chance for precedent creep into other areas of First Amendment law.

However, by criminalizing anything from actually fraudulent claims used to obtain money or political advantage to the relatively harmless white lies and idle boasting in bars, the law went too far. Imagine a situation where a corrupt Corsi-style political thug could not only make up lies about someone like Kerry's military service, but even have him targeted with a bogus criminal investigation.

I would imagine that a nearly identical law to Stolen Valor, which simply added a requirement that the lie be in order to obtain goods or services fraudulently, would pass constitutional muster. I would be glad to see such a law and hope they would even keep the name.

Of course, such speech is already prosecutable as fraud, but I think it would be justifiable to stigmatize it as something even more reprehensible.

One wonders, though, if it is really necessary. Anyone caught in such a lie in a political context almost by definition has their career terminated immediately.

If this law stood, then we could have one if someone claimed to be a Mensa member.

I believe it could have been upheld on narrow grounds that would not create such an outcome. Free speech being a fundamental right, to uphold the law, it would have to be found to be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. I do believe the integrity of the military qualifies as a compelling government interest.

I do not believe the law was narrowly tailored to achieve that goal, since it also criminalized speech that did not impact military integrity, that is, idle boasting.

However, if the law were upheld on such grounds, that reasoning would not apply to a law criminalizing other forms of lying, such as lying about the fish that got away or being a Mensa member.

I'm glad that the law was overturned, but I don't think that upholding it would have threatened a parade of horribles.

BTW, I checked the never-wrong wikipedia concerning the Medal of Honor and it says, not surprisingly, that "it is sometimes erroneously called the 'Congressional Medal of Honor'."

Can anyone explain why Justice Kennedy (and the law itself) repeatedly get that wrong?

Wikipedia is right. 10 USC § 3741 - Medal of honor: award

That comports with what I've heard for years.

Isn't it surprising that both Congress and SCOTUS got it wrong, in significant documents no less?

Justice Scalia's remarks during oral argument certainly didn't forecast his vote on the constitutionality of this law. The best way IMHO to counter someone who claims being awarded a military medal but actually didn't is to ridicule him to death once the facts are known. My IANAL opinion is that this law infringed upon constitutional rights every much as flag burning laws.