More SCOTUS betrayal- Stolen Valor.

[Waitone]

I believe the decision said it is a no-no to profit from lying about military awards, but all is good if you just want to puff up your image.

Back in the old days, bearing false witness was considered morally wrong.  Looks like filthy lucre is now the border of moral conduct.

[Fitz]

i have mixed feelings on this. The soldier in me wants people to be smacked down for claiming false awards.

However, there are already laws on the books for fraud (i.e., gaining monetary benefit from lies)

I have a hard time lately digesting any law making any kind of speech, even lies, illegal. I can see where it can be a slippery slope.

[longeyes]

There are issues where the last word is not the word of lawyers or judges.  This is one.  Now and then we should just indulge our sense of smell.  Dishonor is rank and foul.  Let it be said.

[Perd Hapley]

I believe the decision said it is a no-no to profit from lying about military awards, but all is good if you just want to puff up your image.

Back in the old days, bearing false witness was considered morally wrong.  Looks like filthy lucre is now the border of moral conduct.

   Are we now demanding that every sin be punished by the courts?!

[seeker_two]

   Are we now demanding that every sin be punished by the courts?!

Nope....just the ones the Marines haven't gotten to yet....

[RevDisk]

Back in the old days, bearing false witness was considered morally wrong.  Looks like filthy lucre is now the border of moral conduct.

Problem with legislating morality is that laws are made by politicians. Politicians as a group tend not to be the most moral. Do we really want our laws to be made in the image of their depravities?

Best to put filthy lucre and one's person as the border than that atrocity.

[Balog]

Problem with legislating morality is that laws are made by politicians. Politicians as a group tend not to be the most moral. Do we really want our laws to be made in the image of their depravities?

Best to put filthy lucre and one's person as the border than that atrocity.

Well, to be intellectually honest let's just acknowledge that all law is codified morality. That being said, I agree re not having the most amoral and depraved among us ie politicians, make those moral decisions.

[TommyGunn]

Problem with legislating morality is that laws are made by politicians. Politicians as a group tend not to be the most moral. Do we really want our laws to be made in the image of their depravities?

Best to put filthy lucre and one's person as the border than that atrocity.

Well, to be intellectually honest let's just acknowledge that all law is codified morality. That being said, I agree re not having the most amoral and depraved among us ie politicians, make those moral decisions.

"You can't legislate morality."
Or so goes the old canard.  Years ago, while waiting for a dentist appointment, I picked up a magazine and read a fascinating article about this statement and what the original author meant -- and yes, it had an author.
Prohibitions on murder, rape, assault and battery .... these and others are all "legislated moralities."  And, I think most people here agree these laws are good things though some may question some applications (like wondering about "hate crimes" and assault & battery laws for example).  The author was trying to make a point; that if we started using the court system to try to redress every little offense and problem people meet in daily life we will quickly fill up and overtax the court system.  The point of the statement essentially is that while you can pass a law declaring act "X" illegal, it is likely some people will still do it.  Take murder, for example.  Heck, we ALL know it's immoral and reprehensible -- yet, a few members of society are still doing it.
But, really, there's a thousand rather "minor" offenses that offer more room for question and debate.
Drug laws, for example.  What about minor drugs, like marijuana?  I will obstain from opinionating myself, but the matter has been discussed in threads here; should it be legalized?  Should it be legal, like bourbon and whiskey is, taxed by the state and bought over the counter?
Does a person who gets a "high" on it really deserve a jail sentence?

Anyway, I was fascinated by that old article and wish I'd kept it.  The phrase is oftimes a misused and misunderstood one, but even properly applied, ought to make one think a bit.

[Ned Hamford]

I disagree with the ruling.  I'm of the if they had intended no benefit, why did they do it crowd.  I think it is especially odious. If not its own crime, and merely classified as a general fraud, how do you quantify the good will in say... an election.  As for the rest, provable by the LEOs... I can't imagine a series of cases going forward for those free rounds of beer ect.  I am fine with having the for gain element be a legal presumption for this particular crime.  They want to claim it was solely for their own self esteem, let them put that as a matter of record. 

In my own local political arena I believe there is a fellow stealing all sorts of valor AND going for financial gain... but without an easy I win button, the DA's office is too busy chasing revenue by folks who said different things on their state taxes vs their federal taxes.  As it is for a political figure, it would take quite a bit for them to take any action at all. 

No sir, I just don't like it. 

[longeyes]

Mendacity and fraud corrupt the entire body politic, slowly but inevitably destroy an honorable culture.  We can delude ourselves otherwise, but we didn't get here all at once.  This is no victory for liberty; liberty does not depend on lies.

[erictank]

Mendacity and fraud corrupt the entire body politic, slowly but inevitably destroy an honorable culture.  We can delude ourselves otherwise, but we didn't get here all at once.  This is no victory for liberty; liberty does not depend on lies.

Neither does it depend upon giving government the power to violate the First Amendment, no matter HOW strong you think the bounds are in place against overreach. They're *NEVER* strong enough.

[longeyes]

You're right, but explain to me how freedom of political speech includes deliberate lying.  What is served by that? 

[Fitz]

You're right, but explain to me how freedom of political speech includes deliberate lying.  What is served by that?

If you want to outlaw lying in political speech, you have an uphill battle ahead of you

[TommyGunn]

If you want to outlaw lying in political speech, you have an uphill battle ahead of you

Ever the optimist, huh??    

[erictank]

You're right, but explain to me how freedom of political speech includes deliberate lying.  What is served by that? 

So long as they are not committing fraud, nothing whatsoever. Nor is any MATERIAL harm done. The government is not and should not be in the business of making sure that people's speech serves some useful purpose. Since giving the government the power to infringe upon speech you don't like means giving it the power to infringe upon speech you *DO,* I reiterate that the proposed cure is worse than the disease, especially since anyone deriving actual benefit from said speech is in fact committing a prosecutable offense under current criminal code. Enforce the existing laws first!  Gee, that sounds familiar for some reason...

Add to that, generally speaking, we're not talking about political speech, but personal speech. Still protected, though (generally speaking, of course, not specifically referring to fraudulent stolen-valor speech).

Let 'em lie, as long as they aren't committing fraud, and make it easy for people to name and shame the liars. If they commit fraud, or perjury, nail 'em to the wall.

[Perd Hapley]

You're right, but explain to me how freedom of political speech includes deliberate lying.  What is served by that? 

It keeps government out of the role of being the fact-checker for everything that we say. It means that we will not have the sort of laws some nations have about holocaust denial.

It is one small victory against the proliferation of victimless crimes.

[Balog]

I'd rather have morons claim to be Army Rangers from SEEL Team Six with 8 Purple Hearts and 5 Medals of Honor get away with it than have hate speech laws where preaching the parts of the Bible where it says homosexuality is a sin gets your pastor thrown in jail. Or fines for being a global warming "denier" etc.

[RevDisk]

Well, to be intellectually honest let's just acknowledge that all law is codified morality. That being said, I agree re not having the most amoral and depraved among us ie politicians, make those moral decisions.

"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.
Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?"

To me, it's amoral not to hit bad people with large hammers. And kill ice giants whenever possible. That's how Thor rolls, and it's the preferred model. Other people disagree. Obviously, they're wrong but apparently they have the numbers to get their way. Never forget that all laws are based on force. You do what we say, or we hit you with a large stone. Get enough force, you get to write the laws. Sometimes it's having the largest stick, sometimes it's counting the most noses. Laws have little to do with morality. Again. Think of politicians since the dawn of recorded history. Politicians have been an evil lot long before the current religions existed. You really think they design laws to support morality, or to make things better for themselves with the occasional incidental benefit to the rest of society? 

I'd rather have morons claim to be Army Rangers from SEEL Team Six with 8 Purple Hearts and 5 Medals of Honor get away with it than have hate speech laws where preaching the parts of the Bible where it says homosexuality is a sin gets your pastor thrown in jail. Or fines for being a global warming "denier" etc.

True that.

[Balog]

Rev, you're not really addressing my point. Morality is at the base a system of beliefs about what is right and wrong. Laws are the codification of those beliefs. None of which speaks to whether or not that moral view is correct or not, which I thin k is what you're speaking to.

[longeyes]

It keeps government out of the role of being the fact-checker for everything that we say. It means that we will not have the sort of laws some nations have about holocaust denial.

It is one small victory against the proliferation of victimless crimes.

There is a difference between making allegations about the actions of others and/or historical events and claims about one's own vita for the purpose of self-advancement.  The difference is palpable.

[Perd Hapley]

The difference is palpable.

But, thankfully, not actionable.

[longeyes]

We agree that we don't want The State making "noxious" speech actionable (per the various "hate crime" laws so beloved by the Left).