Stolen Valor Act ruled unconstitutional.

[Really Not All That Bright]

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.

Originally Posted by Ubiquity

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.

[Elendil's Heir]

Mmm. Leftist bacon.

:: slobbering ::

[Saint Cad]

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.

[Acsenray]

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.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

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.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

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?

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

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.

[Batfish]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

IIRC Commercials are allowed to lie if it is so outragous that no reasonable person would believe it....

Originally Posted by Acsenray

You've got it backwards. It's not that commercials are allowed to lie unless no one would believe it...

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

...pickup truck...

Originally Posted by Acsenray

It's not a lie unless the listener or viewer would reasonably believe it to be true...

ehh?

[Really Not All That Bright]

It makes sense if you read this part:

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.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

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.

[Really Not All That Bright]

In that case, what you said doesn't make sense.

[Acsenray]

I don't see that.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

And no. The Dramatization at the bottom doesn't make it less of a lie.

Why is that?

[Saint Cad]

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?

[Trinopus]

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!

[Elendil's Heir]

Ah, the slippery slope! About time we saw that here.

[Trinopus]

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.

[Elendil's Heir]

When you wrote

Originally Posted by Trinopus

...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.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Perhaps we need a Stolen Fallacy Act.

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Perhaps we need a Stolen Fallacy Act.

No, no. I give mine away for FREE!

[Elendil's Heir]

And it's worth every penny!

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

. . . 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.)

[ctnguy]

SCOTUS rules Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

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!

[Nars Glinley]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

Tell her what she's won!

You win one interweb! Don't spend it all in one place.

[Elendil's Heir]

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.

[mhendo]

My opinion is exactly the same as it was when the Ninth Circuit ruled: good decision.

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

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.

[Elendil's Heir]

I'll stand by what I already wrote in post #132, but I accept that the Supremes - and you - don't agree.