Yet another ‘fake soldier’
on 01/16/2008 at 10:20 PM
Well, if the first amendment protected falsehoods, would perjury also be protected? It is, after all, telling a falsehood. The libs don’t seem to have a problem with that (right Mr. Clinton?) even if it is under oath. Well, OK, it has to be one of their guys committing perjury to be protected.
If the KKK says the Jews and the negros are going to take your jobs, rape your women, kill your children and rob you, is what they’re saying protected?
To be fair, I must concede that I agree with this 100%:
Alvarez’s lawyer Brianna J. Fuller argued in the motion to dismiss, which will be heard Jan. 14 in federal court, that “protecting the reputation of military decorations” is not a compelling enough reason to place “restrictions on false statements.”
Absolutely correct, that is not a compelling enough reason. What IS a compelling enough reason is that you are a public employee deliberately making false statements for personal gain. It doesn’t matter whether that gain is in money, connections, reputation, avoiding reponsibility for a suspected screwup, whatever. It’s bad enough that we have to put up with this from salesmen, but we at least have the option not to pay them to lie to us.
And besides… weren’t tobacco companies sued, NOT for damaging people’s health, but for *lying* about how harmful and how addictive nicotine is? Is your lying about how courageous and honorable you are any different? What is it about being a politician that makes it all okay, when it’s evil if anyone else does it?
Waitaminit, this is the People’s Republic of Kalifornia, home of the “that’s illegal because I find it offensive” mentality.
Okay, lemme get this straight. If someone is a radical Muslim and I refer to them as “this sociopathic terrorist whose wife and daughter live in fear of him”, it doesn’t matter if I’m dead on the money, it’s illegal because it might hurt his feelings. If half a dozen black gang members raped and killed someone, even if they call EACH OTHER “nigga gangstaz”, if *I* call them “nigga gangsta rapists and murderers” it’s illegal because it might hurt his feelings. That’s “hate speech”. For that matter it’s hate speech if all I call them is “niggaz”, unless I’m a black gangsta myself. I *might* get away with it if I’m defending them, but since as it happens I’m white that’s a very risky move on my part. If they decide after I said it that they are offended, or if someone completely unconnected with if reads about it later and is offended, “hatred” is retroactively PUT INTO my head as a motivation for my words. Right?
Neat trick, especially the time travel part.
And yet, the fact that his saying a lying, “honor free” (nice phrase, huh?) opportunist like himself was awarded a CMH insults every man and woman who has EVER warn the uniform of the US military (the highest award I got was a Coast Guard MUC. Doesn’t matter, it’s still insulting), and it’s a safe bet AT LEAST several thousand of us have been personally offended by this (I know *I* have).... none of that matters. It’s “protected” speech.
Is there a trail of bread crumbs I can follow to get me out of this labyrinth and back to the planet I was born on? And if the crumbs were Jewish Rye would that make me culturally sensitive or insensitive? And how do you tell?
I am SOOOOOO confused now.
First GOF, let’s get one thing clear…
‘Radical Muslim’ is a redundant term.
The guy lied on a job interview right? That alone will get him canned. Well, it should.
I had heard before that falsely claiming military awards was illegal. Actually I think I’ve heard that for years and years. Yet this Stolen Valor law has only been around since 2005? What was in place before that?
There is a can of worms here. If the 1A protects falsehoods ... but it can’t can it? We couldn’t have libel laws if it did. The old “yelling Fire!! in a crowded theater. Or is it more subtle than that ... you can say whatever you want, but some speech has consequences ... which is why we have libel laws, defamation of character suits ... and that leads directly to the idea that “hate speech” laws are justifiable and legal??
I’m not a lawyer. I don’t even play one on TV. Somebody tell me how this Stolen Valor Act can be constitutional.
I looked up the older law:
US Code 18.1.33.704. Military medals or decorations
(a) In General.— Whoever knowingly wears, manufactures, or sells any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, or the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal, or any colorable imitation thereof, except when authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(b) Congressional Medal of Honor.—
(1) In general.— If a decoration or medal involved in an offense under subsection (a) is a Congressional Medal of Honor, in lieu of the punishment provided in that subsection, the offender shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(2) Definitions.—
(A) As used in subsection (a) with respect to a Congressional Medal of Honor, “sells” includes trades, barters, or exchanges for anything of value.
(B) As used in this subsection, “Congressional Medal of Honor” means—
(i) a medal of honor awarded under section 3741, 6241, or 8741 of title 10 or section 491 of title 14;
(ii) a duplicate medal of honor issued under section 3754, 6256, or 8754 of title 10 or section 504 of title 14; or
(iii) a replacement of a medal of honor provided under section 3747, 6253, or 8747 of title 10 or section 501 of title 14.
and I don’t see how this is constitutional either. If the government gives you a thing, its yours to do with as you please. The “piece of tin” represents the citation added to your military record that recognizes your gallant act, so it’s just a possession. The “or any colorable imitation thereof” part - no way that can be legal. Too vague; any kid wearing a gold star she got from teacher would be in violation.
Luuucy, you got some ‘splainin to do! Tell me how this law is legitimate, and thus makes it’s extension, the Stolen Valor Act equally legit. Well intentioned, sure. No doubt there. But legal???
I claim the following medals: Sea Service, Good Conduct. That’s it. I feel no need to elaborate. Even if I was running for office.
Even more importantly, my DD-214 says ‘Honorable Discharge.’ That really helped when I was buying my house.
Four years onboard the Tommy T.
Drew - The Stolen Valor Law was in response to the phony soldiers - more phonies wearing/claiming the MOH than living recipients - perhaps this case will be the test case.
There are limits on ‘free speech’ - mentioned here - personal gain, etc. He violated it by using the ‘claim’ to either seek his postion or obtain it.
Second (and probably the most important aspect of this case) these are Federal Charges: which means Federal Court.
He is fighting it because he knows they won’t throw it out (and may actually want to test the Constitutionality of it) and if he loses - his caboose will be in the calaboose.
Plus don’t Federal Convictions carry a penalty toward future Office holding!?! - not that Dems care a whit about that one at all.
Gotta point out a bit of irony. In my radical days, spelling Kalifornia and Amerika or similar things were considered a liberal form of protest against conservatives. No real meaning, just an ironic question. How come the people I identify with use the same spellings? (Doc ducks awaiting response)
As far as the false claims. Legal or not, those people are at best pathetic and at worst disgusting.
Um… because that’s how the governer pronounces it?
*snicker*
Obtaining and holding elected office by any means available, being the aim of office seekers and holders, the legality of said seekers and holders to lie, cheat and steal shall not be infringed.
Now, THAT’S a second amendment this turkey could support, no doubt.
Oh and by the way, I don’t concede that ‘radical Muslim’ is a redundant term.
I think that the vast majority of ANY demographic is composed of people who are trying to make enough to pay the bills, support their families and get on with their lives. I think contending that Muslim = radical makes precisely the same amount of sense, for precisely the same reasons, as contending that Christian = abortion clinic bomber, or that white man from the Deep South = racist against blacks.
I will freely concede that most Muslims don’t seem to have the courage to speak out against the radical wahabbi(sp?) murderers. I will freely concede that yes, that COULD be because they secretly agree with them and don’t have the courage to be *open* in their agreement. I think it’s at least equally likely that they don’t have the courage to openly *disagree* with them, and risk the condemnation of their clerics, the members of their congregation, etc. Especially since that condemnation could possibly take the form of being beaten to death, or beheaded, or doused with gasoline and set on fire while still alive and screaming, and that such condemnation could extend to your family as well as yourself. Think for a moment about how many respected military officers will not hesitate to charge into a withering fire, but have to think long and hard before risking the displeasure of their chain of command. Do you really think civilians are not subject to the same pressures?
There’s a lot, a WHOLE lot, of Muslim doctrine I disagree with, and a fair amount of which I consider highly dangerous. But then, there’s a lot of Christian and Judaic doctrine I disagree with too. I refuse to call myself a Christian because I don’t fool myself that I am good enough or pure enough to even make a real *attempt* at meeting the standards set by Y’Shua ha Noztri, but at the same time I am unwilling to *lower* my standards to those accepted by much of Christianity. Perhaps that has to do with spending too much time in the Deep South among “radical Christians.”
Please understand, I know many, many Christians that I consider excellent people, people I respect and often even admire. Nonetheless, they not only don’t meet the standards of Jesus (which to be fair, would be an unrealistic expectation), most of them don’t even attempt it. More, they are willing to lump themselves together (often in the same congregation) with people who are “holy rollers on Sunday, holy terrors the balance of the week”, and never speak out in protest.
Tell me if you can. If you are too polite to speak out against a “Christian” who spends every single Friday night drooling drunk, forces his family to live with the tragedy of an alcoholic father, forces his neighbors to put up with someone who is a hazard to everyone around him one day in every seven… do you really have room to complain about a Muslim who refuses to speak out against someone who may murder him and his entire family because he spoke? Yes, the issue is more important… but so is the danger of putting yourself in the line of fire.I’m not dissing Christians or Christianity, I promise I am not. I’m saying that we all respond to pressure, we all have to deal with the difficulties of our daily lives, and none of us afford to cast the first stone. And I think that the evolving situation in Iraq suggests pretty clearly why “the Muslim community” has been so silent about the depredations of their fellows: They are still living in fear for their lives.
Tell me truly, if you were risking trial and burning as a heretic by the Inquisition, would YOU speak?
