I knew there was a reason I like you better than Airman! 
As for the law, as a veteran, I think it’s a bad idea. There are fraud laws to cover actual instances of using a fake military background for direct monetary gain. Using it to cadge free drinks or get laid is scummy, but not criminal.
However, I would support an addendum that make beating the shit out of said scumbag not assault.
It’s illegal to practice medicine without a license. It’s not illegal to claim that you’re a doctor to impress women at the bar. Why should military service be treated differently?
To take her reference to impersonating police officers. If I try and impress a woman at a bar by claiming I’m a police detective that’s not a crime, but if I show her a Detective’s Shield after claiming I am one, particularly if it was a real one I somehow got ahold of, I broke the law and am in real trouble.
That said, yes, the law is overbroad. ,
Show me one person in this thread who’s even suggested that this might be OK. The specific point i’ve been making is precisely that there are important differences between lying for the purpose of this sort of material gain, on the one hand, and telling tall tales at parties, on the other.
It shouldn’t even be a slap on the wrist. The guy is, indeed, a scumbag, but being a scumbag is the sort of thing than can easily be dealt with through social pressure and opprobrium. By all means, out these losers; hold them up to scorn and ridicule. But when you penalize them through the legal system, you’re crapping on the very values that the military is supposed to be defending.
That could/may be a specific intent crime, meaning what they intend to procure by it.
Take for instance criminal Simulation. I can say I own an art work by Gilbert Stuart, but as long as I have no intention to sell it under that pretext, I am okay.
You are welcome. We need to remember also, it only takes 4 of the 9 Justices to grant a writ of Certiorari. That will not automatcially mean a 5-4 vote either.
There have been studies done in the past to monitor what Justice’s votes for certiorari and how they ruled on the case. If they voted for, did they uphold the lower decision. If they voted against, did they vote against the lower decision.
I believe the SC still has what is known as the Certiorari Pool. This is sort of a roundtable on cases to discuss if Certiorari will be granted. I do know Justice Stevens who just retired did not particpate in it though.
Yup. Looks like everyone’s in it but Justice Alito now: Cert pool - Wikipedia
I’m willing to concede that the guy who lies about service to impress chicks probably shouldn’t be prosecuted. It’s a waste of resources for a trivial offense.
That being said, however, I think the Court needs to keep this to the narrow issue of lying about military service (which lying about medals implies) and not the broader question of lying in general.
The Court also needs to keep it to the narrow issue of whether these restrictions violate the Constitution, and NOT speculate on what policy makes the best sense.
That is, as I read some of the commentary above, it seems more focused on what the best law should be – what’s the best reaction to lying for financial gain vs lying to try to get laid? Those kinds of questions are properly resolved by the legislature; we shouldn’t be looking to the courts to decide this case based on how we want various lies to end up being punished. The courts don’t write law; they apply existing law to facts. Congress has acted – the question for the Courts to answer is: did Congress violate the First Amendment when they acted?
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. Are you saying that the court must either find that the First Amendment bars punishment either for all lies or none?
Obviously the court can take a more nuanced approach than that. But libel, slander, fighting words, obscenity, child pornography and disclosing military and intelligence secrets are all prohibited speech already.
Right, but Bricker seemed to be saying that the court cannot draw the line between different kinds of lies. It seems to me that there’s no reason why some lies might be protected by the First Amendment and some might not be.
No, the courts can absolutely distinguish between kinds of speech – they have, for example, already said that commercial speech deserves less protection than political speech.
And maybe I misinterpreted the thrust of the discussions above, but it seemed to me there was more discussion about how harshly (“slap on the wrist”) various lies should be punished, as opposed to whether they’re protected by the Constitution or not.
It would be a novel claim that the First Amendment dictates how harsh a punishment we should apply for certain violations.
Ah, okay. We’re on the same page then.
Would it, though? Disclosing when a troop transport is secretly sailing in wartime could get you sent to prison. Slandering a nonpublic figure could only get you ordered to pay money in damages. Although I suppose it’s not the First Amendment itself that’s dictating the punishment…
This WSJ article (paywalled?) states:
Apparently we’re going to have to wait until summer for a decision.
I can’t say much about the constitutional issues. FWIW, I care not a lick if someone falsely claims or wears a shiny. Seems a bit silly to do so, but not as silly as getting worked up about it. I suspect there’s significant overlap between the worked-up crowd in this case and those who get all mouth-frothy about flag-burning, and I’m just not going to understand it.
HuffPost’s SCOTUS correspondent’s take on the oral argument today. Looks like it was a hot bench: In Stolen Valor Act Case, Supreme Court Debates When Lies Can Be Crimes | HuffPost Latest News
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.
What?
Uh. Clinton got a blowjob?