REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

First Amendment violation?

POSTED BY: FREDGIBLET
UPDATED: Friday, January 18, 2008 17:24
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3700
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:51 PM

FREDGIBLET

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:18 PM

EVILDINOSAUR


I would say he is in no way protected by the first ammendment

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 5:23 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire is making a false statement. Should the person doing so be held not liable for injuries and damage under the First Amendment?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:09 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Different concept, Geeze.

No harm to another person could really come of this morons abject stupidity, so he gets a pass on free speech grounds, in my opinion.

Nowhere in the first amendment does it say it has to be honest speech, and that's a scary road to go down if someone wants to mandate it so.

That bein said, legally, no... but his employer is within THEIR rights to immediately fire his ass and the local media is well within THEIR rights of free speech to make him a laughingstock for it.

I just don't see where any LEGAL issue should be make of it - so he's fulla shit, you wanna start arresting people for THAT, start on Capitol Hill.

And bring a BIG paddywaggon.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:15 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


I don’t think willful deliberate falsehoods need be protected under the Second Amendment. And in fact, it’s not. If you saying something about a person that is deliberate and wrong, you can be sued for slander. And I’m not inclined to have a whole lot of sympathy for any person who lies about having a Medal of Honor, especially if they’ve never even served.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:36 PM

BADKARMA00


Well, if I read correctly, then there IS a law, enacted by Congress, making it illegal to make false claims about military honors. From that standpoint, he broke the law, so he's guilty.

Depending on the stupidity level involved, i.e. the government vs. lying jackass, this one could. . .go. . .all. . . the. . .way.

To the supreme court, where of course it will be heard, since the courts at all levels always entertain motions on moronic dumb-shit ideas, while patiently ignoring the important things.

Gosh, that sounds kinda disillusioned doesn't it?

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:39 PM

FREMDFIRMA


"I don’t think willful deliberate falsehoods need be protected under the Second Amendment."

They aren't, that's what the First is for, the Second is to protect it effectively.

I don't have any sympathy for em either, none whatever - but THINK for a minute about your own rights, and where that path goes, although the idea of rounding up the entirety of Congess is appealing, it's a bad bad baaaad precedent, and more grease on an awfully slippery slope.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:48 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"I don’t think willful deliberate falsehoods need be protected under the Second Amendment."

They aren't, that's what the First is for, the Second is to protect it effectively.

Oops. I don’t think they should be protected under the First Amendment either.
Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I don't have any sympathy for em either, none whatever - but THINK for a minute about your own rights, and where that path goes, although the idea of rounding up the entirety of Congess is appealing, it's a bad bad baaaad precedent, and more grease on an awfully slippery slope.

I’m not saying that we criminalize all acts of lying, but I am saying we don’t grant it as a Constitutional right.

If lying were illegal, a man would never stay married.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:08 AM

FREMDFIRMA


"then there IS a law, enacted by Congress"

Well, there's this little problem with that.

"Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


It's written in such (intended) iron-clad terms for just these kind of instances, the interpretation is always supposed to come down on the side of no, unless explicitly and expressly authorized.

The Constitution is not a list of things WE can do, with all else prohibited.

It's a list of things the Government is allowed to do, with all else expressly forbidden.

But try tellin that to the Supreme Court... grr


-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:48 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Different concept, Geeze.

No harm to another person could really come of this morons abject stupidity, so he gets a pass on free speech grounds, in my opinion.



On closer reading of the circumstances, could be. I'm not sure either all Medal of Honor winners or all Marines would agree his remarks were harmless.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2008 5:03 AM

FREMDFIRMA


And if they feel that way, they're well within their rights to file for slander/defamation.

This whole mess is basically using a bulldozer to do a shovels job.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:21 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
It's written in such (intended) iron-clad terms for just these kind of instances, the interpretation is always supposed to come down on the side of no, unless explicitly and expressly authorized.

The Constitution is not a list of things WE can do, with all else prohibited.

It's a list of things the Government is allowed to do, with all else expressly forbidden.

But try tellin that to the Supreme Court... grr



Much of your frustration comes from not reading the entire Constitution. For instance, the Govt can restrict speech under certain limited circumstances...such as the 'fire' in a theater argument or 'time, place, and manner' arguments. It really comes down to due process and whether or not the law in question meets that standard.

In this case, however, while there seems to be a restraint on liberty, the issue is not one of speech, but rather fraud. No person has the right to defraud another.

Your overbroad argument would make it legal for another person to claim ownership of your property and sell that property even though they had no right to do so simply because the law of fraud restricts their 'free speech' right to lie. That makes no sense.

As a veteran, who never served, and a winner of not one but seven seperate Medals of Honor in five different conflicts spanning two centuries, I hereby claim all of Fremdfirma's property and am offering it for sale. Its mine and I can sell it...you have my word. Any takers? No? Because its not really mine to sell, just like I never served, just like I NEVER won any medals, and to claim otherwise is a lie and to lie to another in order to obtain a benefit is FRAUD.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:15 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
In this case, however, while there seems to be a restraint on liberty, the issue is not one of speech, but rather fraud. No person has the right to defraud another.



You know I actually hadn't thought of that angle.

Quote:

Your overbroad argument would make it legal for another person to claim ownership of your property and sell that property even though they had no right to do so simply because the law of fraud restricts their 'free speech' right to lie. That makes no sense.


Funny thing, not too long ago my grandparents neighbors filed a claim of some sort (forget the name) basically stating that they owned about a quarter to half an acre of land that belonged to my grandparents, not that the property lines were incorrect, but rather that they were simply claiming the land. There's some rule on the books that you can claim abandoned land and if the owners of the land don't respond then its yours, but the whole thing has a very Hitchhikers Guide feel to it since there's apparently no mechanism to attempt to check if the land is actually abandoned.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:24 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:

There's some rule on the books that you can claim abandoned land and if the owners of the land don't respond then its yours, but the whole thing has a very Hitchhikers Guide feel to it since there's apparently no mechanism to attempt to check if the land is actually abandoned.


Its called Adverse Possession and generally only applies to real property (ie Real Estate). You claim it by action...like mowing or farming or improving. If the owner does not respond in some fashion (including simply giving you written permission to mow or whatever) then its yours. Its a common law notion and the rule is generally seven years. Check your local laws though, the times and manner vary and in most cases you can't adverse possess govt property.

Oddly it was my favorite chapter in Property 1 back in lawschool.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:51 AM

MILFORD


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
For instance, the Govt can restrict speech under certain limited circumstances...such as the 'fire' in a theater argument or 'time, place, and manner' arguments. It really comes down to due process and whether or not the law in question meets that standard.

In this case, however, while there seems to be a restraint on liberty, the issue is not one of speech, but rather fraud. No person has the right to defraud another.



Since you're up on the law, do I remember correctly that there are instances in which the military operates under a different set of rules than civilian society? If I remember correctly (which after a longish morning is doubtful) that this is true, then could the military bring charges against him, perhaps for impersonating an officer, or something similar?

Either way, the guy is a complete tool. Complete, lacking nothing in terms of tool-essence. In fact, I propose that we declare him Tool Prime, by which all future tools can be measured.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Customizeable handmade baby gifts personalized by my wife! Check them out at www.baby-bobo.com. All proceeds go towards international adoption.

Leaning into the wind that used to carry me-Stavesacre

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:12 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Oddly enough (and much as it pains me to say it), I agree with Hero. This douche is a fraud.

My remedy would be a little more poetic, though. I say if he's claiming he served in the military and won the Medal of Honor, then by all means let's let him try to make it right. Suit him up in desert cammies and drop his old ass deep into the shit in the badlands of Afghanistan. If he comes back alive, he's probably EARNED that medal! If not, it's no real loss to humanity...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:35 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by milford:
Since you're up on the law, do I remember correctly that there are instances in which the military operates under a different set of rules than civilian society? If I remember correctly (which after a longish morning is doubtful) that this is true, then could the military bring charges against him, perhaps for impersonating an officer, or something similar?


The military operates under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is a seperate and distinct legal code from the United States Code. It is very rare that a civilian would be within military jurisdiction, but it is possible.

However, in this case, I think that the US Code and perhaps the California state law, would apply. In that he is NOT impersonating an officer, but rather a FORMER officer, I don't think the laws apply. Thats part of the reason the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was passed (and I note the act was unusual in its simple, easy to understand format, lack of pork, and large amount of bipartisan support).

If your interested there was a JAG episode on this subject that starred Montel Williams as a Navy SEAL who went and kicked a politicians ass for claiming to be a former SEAL. Silly show, but they did good legal writing for those parts of the show. Catherine Bell...

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:11 PM

BADKARMA00


True, Frem, which is why I suspect that this particular episode of bueripidity (that's a word I invented btw:) will reach at least the 9th circuit, which will of course rule as liberally as possible, something they are famous for.

And I agree, it's using a dozer for spade work.

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:07 PM

SIMONWHO


I think most people supporting this under free speech might feel differently if someone printed 50,000 leaflets with their picture and personal details on it labelling them a paedophile and distributed them round their neighbourhood.

There are libel and slander laws for a reason.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:31 PM

BADKARMA00


Oh Im not arguing that, Simon. I dont feel that free speech covers this idiots actions in any way. It's an insult to every man and woman who has ever served this country, and especially to the very few who have been recognized with the Medal of Honor.

My, issues, I guess, are just with how this will get so blown out of proportion, and the court's used to 'rule' on whether or not 'free speech' includes fraud.

There's no doubt this man is slime, imo. Or that his actions definitely call for some form of punishment. For my part, put him in a room with families of those who HAVE been recognized, posthumously, for their valor, and let them take care of it.

Poetic Justice.

Fedup-Karma

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:37 PM

KIRKULES


I think it's pretty clear this idiot's claim to be a war hero is protected speech. Seems if someone could prove real damages they might have a civil case against him at best. The public shame that results from outing a piece of crap like this guy is the best punishment.

I know I'm right in this case because I asked my wife Morgan Fairchild.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:47 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
I think it's pretty clear this idiot's claim to be a war hero is protected speech. Seems if someone could prove real damages they might have a civil case against him at best. The public shame that results from outing a piece of crap like this guy is the best punishment.

I know I'm right in this case because I asked my wife Morgan Fairchild.




Crap! You mean my Morgan's a bigimist?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2008 4:15 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
I think it's pretty clear this idiot's claim to be a war hero is protected speech.


At first glance you are correct, however the Supreme Court has been very consistant in saying that there is no 'right to lie'. This first case would seem to support your argument:

"Thus, the First Amendment "ordinarily" denies a State the power to prohibit dissemination of social, economic and political doctrine which a vast majority of its citizens believes to be false and fraught with evil consequence." Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 374 (1927) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

But:

"The protections afforded by the First Amendment, however, are not absolute, and we have long recognized that the government may regulate certain categories of expression consistent with the Constitution." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-572 (1942) ("There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem").

And in conclusion as to the issue of fraud in general and this lie in particular:

"Calculated falsehood falls into that class of utterances which are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. . . ." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572.

and:

"Hence the knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection." Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75 (1964). [472 U.S. 488]


That about ends the discussion...questions?

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2008 4:32 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


If I understand correctly (and I probably don't in this instance, since I didn't read the entire article), this guy's basically a civil servant, right? As such, his application would have been given some preferential treatment because of his service record (as in, if you apply at the IRS, you get extra points for being a veteran, and so on). If that's the case, there are indeed REAL damages that have been done to the people. This guy perpetrated a fraud in order to bilk the electorate out of money, and in order to put that money in his own pocket. Anyone thought of that angle yet?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2008 7:29 AM

FREMDFIRMA


So basically the Supreme Court can re-interpret the Constitution any way they like, to say whatever they like, to mean whatever they like, eh ?

Kinda invalidates the whole damn document, doesn't it ?

And this was predicted, in explicit detail, by BRUTUS, in AntiFederalist Papers 11, 12 & 15.

http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus11.htm
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus12.htm#01
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm

In essence, what is to stop them from re-interpreting ANY word or phrase of the Constitution to mean the exact opposite of it's intention - a document written quite deliberately in (intended) iron-clad terms to prevent it ?

Why, nothing - no proper check and balance upon them exists, and that this would lead to misery, was bloody obvious from the beginning.

Our current situation is eerily ominous when contrasted in light of THIS statement from AntiFederalist Paper #1, isn't it ?
http://www.constitution.org/afp/centin01.htm
Quote:

From this investigation into the organization of this government, it appears that it is devoid of all responsibility or accountability to the great body of the people, and that so far from being a regular balanced government, it would be in practice a permanent ARISTOCRACY.

Which, it has.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2008 8:03 AM

RAZZA


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
In essence, what is to stop them from re-interpreting ANY word or phrase of the Constitution to mean the exact opposite of it's intention - a document written quite deliberately in (intended) iron-clad terms to prevent it ?

Why, nothing - no proper check and balance upon them exists, and that this would lead to misery, was bloody obvious from the beginning...



Not quite Frem. I point you to the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 2:

Quote:

...The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.


To say there is nothing anyone could do to a justice(s), who declared themselves "Judicial Monarchs with supreme power over the land" through an interpretation of the federal highway bill is a bit of a stretch. The fact is that they could not enforce such an interpretation if they were foolish enough to make it. I doubt the House of Representatives would sit idly by while the Supreme Court went amok with ridiculous interpretations that were the exact opposite of the Congress' intentions either. Impeachment is just one method the Congress could use to reign in Judicial overstepping.

-----------------
Yet Another Stupid Blog --> www.razzarant.net

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2008 10:07 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Razza:
To say there is nothing anyone could do to a justice(s), who declared themselves "Judicial Monarchs with supreme power over the land" through an interpretation of the federal highway bill is a bit of a stretch. The fact is that they could not enforce such an interpretation if they were foolish enough to make it. I doubt the House of Representatives would sit idly by while the Supreme Court went amok with ridiculous interpretations that were the exact opposite of the Congress' intentions either. Impeachment is just one method the Congress could use to reign in Judicial overstepping.


Impeachment is one option.

Another is the President could refuse to enforce a ruling as President Jackson did over the indian issue in Georgia.

President Roosevelt (Franklin) was frustrated by the Court declaring 5-4 that the New Deal unconstitutional and decided to fix the problem by increasing the number of justices from 9 to 12 (allowing him to pack the Court with three new appointees). That led to the famous 'switch in time to save nine' where the 5-4 split one way became a 5-4 split the other.

Justices have been impeached over political disagreements with ruling...including Justice Samuel Chase, from the Marshall Court, who was impeached during the Federalist-Republican power struggle.

Simply put, the Constitution says what 9 folks in black say it does. Those nine folks are chosen in such a way that it makes an abuse of their power extremely difficult and rare. Supreme Court decisions are not simply bland proclamations of policy. They are set forth in legal reasoning that are readily available more review by both the public, the other branches, and by legal scholars. If a decision is bad or poorly reasoned it is readily apparent and subject to attack (exp...Brown v. Board of Education which overturned a bad ruling that supported segregation). But even the most politically controversal and divisive decisions can withstand scrutiny if based on sound legal reasoning (exp...Roe v. Wade, which says the state can outlaw abortions...when the fetus becomes viable, not before).

Just because you don't like a decision does not mean the whole Court is run mad with power. But if your going to start your rebellion, I'd suggest you pick a better issue then defending this fella's God given right to lie about having defended the country.

You wont find many folks willing to fight for his cause...although you might find a few willing to lie about having fought for his cause.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2008 10:18 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


FredG- If this is still an issue with your grandfolks-
Quote:

Funny thing, not too long ago my grandparents neighbors filed a claim of some sort (forget the name) basically stating that they owned about a quarter to half an acre of land that belonged to my grandparents, not that the property lines were incorrect, but rather that they were simply claiming the land. There's some rule on the books that you can claim abandoned land and if the owners of the land don't respond then its yours, but the whole thing has a very Hitchhikers Guide feel to it since there's apparently no mechanism to attempt to check if the land is actually abandoned.-FredG

Its called Adverse Possession and generally only applies to real property (ie Real Estate). You claim it by action...like mowing or farming or improving. If the owner does not respond in some fashion (including simply giving you written permission to mow or whatever) then its yours. Its a common law notion and the rule is generally seven years. Check your local laws though, the times and manner vary and in most cases you can't adverse possess govt property.-Hero

In CA there have been several rulings against this kind of possession based on who paid the property tax? That puts ownerhsip clearly with the name in the County Registrar's Office, and would prolly make a good defense against your neighbor trying to acquire your grandparents' property.


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2008 10:56 AM

FREDGIBLET


Thanks but I think it's been resolved. I wasn't involved in it (except for an offer of giving the assholes in question an offer they couldn't refuse) but I'm pretty sure that once my grandparents found out what was going on things got straightened out pretty fast.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2008 12:24 PM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
I think it's pretty clear this idiot's claim to be a war hero is protected speech.


At first glance you are correct, however the Supreme Court has been very consistant in saying that there is no 'right to lie'.


"Calculated falsehood falls into that class of utterances which are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. . . ." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572.



Chaplinsky case dealt with language that is "lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace". In the phony hero case the language used was not offensive at the time it was used. It only became offensive when people later learn it was untrue.

Quote:


"Hence the knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection." Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75 (1964). [472 U.S. 488]


That about ends the discussion...questions?

H



The Garrison case seems to deal with actual Libel. Libelous speech is not protected, but they would have to prove "actual malice". This seem like it would be difficult to do in this case because the guy was just trying to inflate himself in others eyes, not denigrate others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2008 5:24 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
...Catherine Bell...



Look everyone. Hero and I found something that we agree on. One heck of a lady.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Thu, May 19, 2022 10:52 - 327 posts
Why is Russia losing so much military equipment?
Thu, May 19, 2022 08:34 - 6 posts
Biden
Thu, May 19, 2022 07:43 - 579 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Thu, May 19, 2022 07:26 - 244 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Thu, May 19, 2022 00:00 - 10527 posts
I never thought I'd miss this evil little Goblin...
Wed, May 18, 2022 23:36 - 1 posts
Trump's Budget
Wed, May 18, 2022 19:34 - 297 posts
Russia keeps threatening with nukes
Wed, May 18, 2022 15:12 - 76 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, May 18, 2022 14:46 - 322 posts
SILENCE!!!
Wed, May 18, 2022 03:04 - 2 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Tue, May 17, 2022 12:01 - 539 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Tue, May 17, 2022 11:14 - 1325 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL