Stolen Valor, Free Speech

Unfortunately, if I read this right, it seems to be in line with the Supremes 2012 ruling.
 
Note that only the part barring the display of unearned medals was struck down by the 9th Circuit as an unconstitutional infringement of First-Amendment-protected speech (as kinnem noted, in line with US v Alvarez, 567 US ____, a 6-3 decision - unusual for this SCOTUS). The parts prohibiting gains of money, property, or other "tangible benefits" are still in effect.

(Also posting as FYI.)
 
Don't disagree gokings but what counts is what the Supremes think.
 
Even as someone on the liberal end of the spectrum, I agree with this - that is, I agree it's disgusting that someone can claim to have earned a purple heart, who did not. But our Constitution protects disgusting, even hateful speech and expression. It must apply to all, or eventually it will apply to none.
 
Let's see, you can impersonate a veteran and wear whatever medals you want, even if you were never a veteran and you didn't earn a single one, but you can't wear a sombrero on Cinco de Mayo, paint your face black on Halloween, or wear an American flag on your T-shirt at a high school rally. Where is the justice in that? I too am disgusted by the whole thing.
 
only slightly less disgusting than making flag burning "free speech". The libtards are slowly sending our country to hell
 
MAJOROFSTLO said:
only slightly less disgusting than making flag burning "free speech". The libtards are slowly sending our country to hell
Click to expand...

Some of the strongest champions of First-Amendment free speech come from all over the political spectrum, including SC Justice Anthony Kennedy, a moderate. The Swisher decision was 8-3. Among some of the eight assenting judges was at least one Bush 43 appointee; one of the three dissenting judges, Paul J. Watford, was appointed by Obama. Most Courts of Appeal decisions from most Circuits are complex, like this one.

I recognize that, as a political liberal, I am most definitely in the minority on this forum and therefore have stayed out of political discussion. Furthermore, I support, unequivocally, your right to call me and people of like political beliefs that distasteful pejorative. However, it is simply not true that people on the other end of the political spectrum as you: hate this country, hate all things that are good and right, and kick puppies when no one's looking. And for the record, DH's and my very best friend is a politically-conservative colleague of DH's, although I'm glad to say he does not resort to the name-calling and baiting that passes for political expression these days (we have actual discussions about politics! DH/I/colleague have actually changed our minds about issues!). One of the reasons I do things like posting here and encouraging my best students to consider CIA, NSA, FBI, DoD, and uniformed services is because these services, so important to our country, need to represent (and be represented by) all their citizens. When only some are represented, it's way too easy to say they're the only ones worthy of protection or favor. Just like when only one point of view about the First Amendment is represented on our courts, only that speech will be worthy of the protection of the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AJC
gokings814 said:
Somehow IMHO, impersonating a United States GI, retired or otherwise, is NOT an example of "free speech" any more than dressing up as a cop is.
Click to expand...

Agree. Don't understand how folks can do this and look in the mirror without throwing up!
 
I am conflicted.

Every veteran has sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States... and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. We all did so to the best of our ability while serving in the military and when these types of free speech issues comes up (stolen valor, flag desecration, etc) its hard to reconcile our previous commitment with our gut feelings. So I weigh the "I served to protect the rights of these idiots to exercise free speech even if its in a manner I don't agree with" and my natural instinct to exercise my perceived right to crack them in the head and tune them up under my definition of "free speech." Thus far (in my case at least) discretion and restraint has guided my actions.

Never mind the numb skulls exercising their freedom of speech rights by wearing unearned medals. Prosecute 'em if they try to profit from doing so by gains of money, property, or other "tangible benefits". If you are so inclined, out them in every possible social media system possible.
 
The same constitution that gives "free" speech also gives gun "rights".
 
gokings814 said:
Somehow IMHO, impersonating a United States GI, retired or otherwise, is NOT an example of "free speech" any more than dressing up as a cop is.
Click to expand...

A police officer has some degree of authority walking down the street. Someone in NWUs does not. If someone dressed like a police officer told me to do something I would probably comply. If someone dressed up like LCDR Tom Dodge did I'd very respectfully them to beat it.


FalconsRock said:
Let's see, you can impersonate a veteran and wear whatever medals you want, even if you were never a veteran and you didn't earn a single one, but you can't wear a sombrero on Cinco de Mayo, paint your face black on Halloween, or wear an American flag on your T-shirt at a high school rally. Where is the justice in that? I too am disgusted by the whole thing.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the Supreme Court would support all of those things. They're all examples of protected speech. They all happen too be in bad taste too, which is why if you did anyone those things someone would publicly shame you. Have you seen the stolen valor Facebook page?


AJC said:
The same constitution that gives "free" speech also gives gun "rights".
Click to expand...

Don't know what that has to do with the price of tea in China.


MAJOROFSTLO said:
only slightly less disgusting than making flag burning "free speech". The libtards are slowly sending our country to hell
Click to expand...


You get a special comment. Anyone shallow enough to use any play on the word ******** is a degree higher of disrespectful than the military of today will tolerate. You'd also be three or four (hundred) degrees too stupid to serve. I hope you find someone in your life that can explain to you why your bigoted bull**** needs to stop.


I'd never think about burning a flag or wearing a medal I haven't earned. But having spent enough time in parts of the world where speech isn't protected I'm damn glad people can play dress up in this country. Go spend some time in a country where the ruler is called "Sheik" and you'll quickly understand why the opposite end of this spectrum is far more grim then people wearing marpat in the airport because they need attention.
 
Price of tea?
My point is you can't wrap your self in the constitution when it suits you and then dismiss it when it doesn't.
 
When you give everyone a trophy.....this is the results you get.

Push Hard, Press Forward
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top