The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 02-22-2012, 09:18 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
The more I look at this, the more I think this will be overturned, with specifics in the opinion about how Congress could have done it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubiquity View Post
BUT,BUT!! Kerry spent Christmas in Cambodia!

Liars are who they are but they are protected by the first amendment.

This Stolen Honor is pure leftist bullshit.
The Act was passed in the Senate by unanimous consent, and in the House by voice vote. It's about as "leftist" as bacon.

Last edited by Really Not All That Bright; 02-22-2012 at 09:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #202  
Old 02-22-2012, 11:08 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: At the Diogenes Club
Posts: 49,510
Mmm. Leftist bacon.

:: slobbering ::
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 02-23-2012, 12:31 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
IIRC Commercials are allowed to lie if it is so outragous that no reasonable person would believe it. I say let's make that illegal first then worry about a guy trying to get laid claiming he has a MOH.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 02-23-2012, 12:39 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 27,176
You've got it backwards. It's not that commercials are allowed to lie unless no one would believe it. It's that commercials can be the subject of liability if they are fraudulent. And part of fraud means that there is a materially misleading statement upon which people rely to their detriment, such as by buying a product that they otherwise wouldn't have. In other words, there has to be an exchange of value here. Mere social goodwill doesn't count as an exchange of value.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 02-23-2012, 01:43 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
You've got it backwards. It's not that commercials are allowed to lie unless no one would believe it. It's that commercials can be the subject of liability if they are fraudulent. And part of fraud means that there is a materially misleading statement upon which people rely to their detriment, such as by buying a product that they otherwise wouldn't have. In other words, there has to be an exchange of value here. Mere social goodwill doesn't count as an exchange of value.
All I know is that a commercial showing a pickup truck going up a 70 degree slope in the snow with an Airstream then jumping 400 yds and not getting a scratch is more of lie than, "Hey baby. I got a Good Conduct Medal. Wanna see it?"

And no. The Dramatization at the bottom doesn't make it less of a lie.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 02-23-2012, 01:52 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 27,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
All I know is that a commercial showing a pickup truck going up a 70 degree slope in the snow with an Airstream then jumping 400 yds and not getting a scratch is more of lie than, "Hey baby. I got a Good Conduct Medal. Wanna see it?"

And no. The Dramatization at the bottom doesn't make it less of a lie.
It's not a lie unless the listener or viewer would reasonably believe it to be true. When you go to the movies, do you think you're sitting through two hours of lies? When you read fiction, do you consider it to be a pack of lies?
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 02-23-2012, 02:00 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
It's not a lie unless the listener or viewer would reasonably believe it to be true. When you go to the movies, do you think you're sitting through two hours of lies? When you read fiction, do you consider it to be a pack of lies?
Yes.
But the Da Vinci Code is true.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 02-23-2012, 08:40 PM
Batfish Batfish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
IIRC Commercials are allowed to lie if it is so outragous that no reasonable person would believe it....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
You've got it backwards. It's not that commercials are allowed to lie unless no one would believe it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
...pickup truck...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
It's not a lie unless the listener or viewer would reasonably believe it to be true...
ehh?
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 02-24-2012, 10:33 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
It makes sense if you read this part:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascenray
...part of fraud means that there is a materially misleading statement upon which people rely to their detriment...
It doesn't matter if reasonable people would believe it, necessarily. It matters if someone does believe it, and then buys a Nissan pickup because they think it will let them jump from rooftop to rooftop to avoid traffic.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 02-24-2012, 11:25 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 27,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
It makes sense if you read this part:

It doesn't matter if reasonable people would believe it, necessarily. It matters if someone does believe it, and then buys a Nissan pickup because they think it will let them jump from rooftop to rooftop to avoid traffic.
Actually, in that kind of case, if someone were to actually believe that he could leap rooftops in a Nissan pickup, the law would say that this was not a reasonable belief, so there couldn't be any liability, and even if it was, the disclaimer would take care of it.
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 02-24-2012, 11:45 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
In that case, what you said doesn't make sense.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 02-24-2012, 12:48 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 27,176
I don't see that.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 02-27-2012, 10:23 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post

And no. The Dramatization at the bottom doesn't make it less of a lie.
Why is that?
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 03-05-2012, 03:00 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Just a thought and I apoligize if it was covered elsewhere in the thread.

A guy wearing a medal he didn't earn goes into a bar. Another guy thinks he's a veteran and on that basis buys him a drink. The one wearing the "stolen valor" accepts knowing full well why he is getting a free drink.

Fraud?
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 03-05-2012, 06:36 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 11,368
Opinion: no. Getting someone to buy you a drink is a "social interaction," not a formal "commercial interaction."

Suppose I wear a "Rick Santorum" lapel pin, hoping someone will buy me a drink, when I'm really an Obama supporter. It's an implied untruth, but I'm not entering into any contractual agreement, I'm just hoping someone feels generous.

To some degree, this is why gifts are (to a degree) exempted from Income Tax. It isn't "income" if I buy you a drink, even though you are benefiting materially. Ditto if Aunt Agatha gives you a nice sweater.

And if you lied to Aunt Agatha about getting straight A's, in order to trick her into giving you that sweater, and she later learns you only got B's and C's, she can't sue you for fraud.

Imagine how clogged the courts would get if every little lie was actionable!
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 03-05-2012, 11:44 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: At the Diogenes Club
Posts: 49,510
Ah, the slippery slope! About time we saw that here.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 03-06-2012, 12:22 AM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 11,368
Isn't it, instead, the opposite of the slippery slope? Instead of saying X would lead to Y, and then to Z, I'm saying that X and Z are different, and not to be treated in the same way.

In classical rhetoric, there are two fallacies -- the fallacy of drawing the line -- and the fallacy of not drawing the line -- which always flank us, Scylla and Charybdis, ready to wreck us if we veer too far in either direction. The fallacy of not drawing the line is pretty much the same as the slippery slope.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 03-06-2012, 09:02 AM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: At the Diogenes Club
Posts: 49,510
When you wrote

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
...Imagine how clogged the courts would get if every little lie was actionable!
it seemed to be you were implicitly critical of the SVA. Perhaps I misunderstood you.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 03-06-2012, 10:22 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Perhaps we need a Stolen Fallacy Act.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 03-06-2012, 11:21 AM
jsgoddess jsgoddess is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Perhaps we need a Stolen Fallacy Act.
No, no. I give mine away for FREE!
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 03-06-2012, 04:41 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: At the Diogenes Club
Posts: 49,510
And it's worth every penny!
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 03-06-2012, 07:18 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 11,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
. . . it seemed to be you were implicitly critical of the SVA. Perhaps I misunderstood you.
Oh, no: I was being critical of the notion that cadging drinks by dint of spurious claims was "fraud."

Same if, for instance, I went into a bar and showed off my (counterfeit) Super Bowl Ring, and somebody said, "Wow! Lemme buy you a drink!" It's slimy, but it doesn't actually fall to the level of criminal fraud.

Buying drinks for people isn't a commercial exchange, but a private one. That's why I also compared it to giving birthday gifts.

(However...I do disagree with the SVA, and was happy when it was overturned.)
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 06-28-2012, 10:05 AM
ctnguy ctnguy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
SCOTUS rules Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 06-28-2012, 10:47 AM
jsgoddess jsgoddess is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsgoddess View Post
This is a good case for fantasySCOTUS.net! I think the SC will consider the law unconstitutional on free speech grounds.
Tell her what she's won!
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 06-28-2012, 10:50 AM
Nars Glinley Nars Glinley is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsgoddess View Post
Tell her what she's won!
You win one interweb! Don't spend it all in one place.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 06-30-2012, 09:42 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: At the Diogenes Club
Posts: 49,510
And so they've ruled. I would've dissented, and there's already some talk that a more narrowly-crafted law would've passed muster, but eh. What's done is done.
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 07-01-2012, 12:49 PM
mhendo mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
My opinion is exactly the same as it was when the Ninth Circuit ruled: good decision.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 07-01-2012, 03:34 PM
Rhythmdvl Rhythmdvl is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shakedown Street
Posts: 12,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
And so they've ruled. I would've dissented, and there's already some talk that a more narrowly-crafted law would've passed muster, but eh. What's done is done.
Do you also believe the Federal government should have the authority to criminalize lying on a resume? Should have the authority to make lying under any circumstances that meet the following 5 criteria (taken from the dissenting opinion):
1) Objective facts that can almost always be proved or disproved with near certainty;
2) Facts that are squarely within the speaker's personal knowledge;
3) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the speaker actually knew that the representation was false;
4) Statements that could reasonably be interpreted as communicating actual facts; and
5) Ban would be strictly viewpoint neutral.

Beyond resumes, this set of criteria would make it Constitutionally permissible to criminalize all falsehoods regardless of context.

Good decision for a reprehensible law.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 07-01-2012, 10:16 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: At the Diogenes Club
Posts: 49,510
I'll stand by what I already wrote in post #132, but I accept that the Supremes - and you - don't agree.
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 05-21-2013, 10:58 PM
Ruken Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 2,706
Looks like the House passed a new version. Nearly unanimous; only three against. It's not clear from the article how they changed it to get around the courts this time. I'm still disgusted that people are even bothered by this speech, let alone that they want to make it a crime.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...valor-act.html
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 05-22-2013, 12:54 AM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 11,368
Does the Senate show any signs of having greater wisdom?

(Greater wisdom than today's House of Representatives? My little doggy's claw clippings have more wisdom!)
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 05-22-2013, 01:03 AM
Oakminster Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
It's not clear from the article how they changed it to get around the courts this time.
Looks like they added an element of intent to defraud which the previous version lacked. I hope it passes muster this time.
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 05-22-2013, 09:27 AM
Gedd Gedd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Looks like they added an element of intent to defraud which the previous version lacked. I hope it passes muster this time.
So under this version if you went to a bar that has a policy of giving free drinks to decorated servicepeople and put on some fake medals so that you could get free drinks too, they could nab you?

If so it sounds reasonable to me. Next up, people who drive alone in the carpool lane.
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 05-22-2013, 02:20 PM
Rhythmdvl Rhythmdvl is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shakedown Street
Posts: 12,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
I hope it passes muster this time.
Why? Are existing fraud laws insufficient? Do you think the government should have the power to criminalize lying or just lies that offend someone's particular fetish?
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.