Lying is now a Constitutional Right

[VoiceofReason]

I think the court erred.

“There would be no constitutional bar to criminalizing lying about one’s height, weight, age, or financial status on Match.com or Facebook, or falsely representing to one’s mother that one does not smoke, drink alcoholic beverages, is a virgin, or has not exceeded the speed limit while driving on the freeway,” . . . “The sad fact is, most people lie about some aspects of their lives from time to time.”

This law does not criminalize “lying about one’s height, weight, age, or financial status on Match.com or Facebook”. It is narrowly tailored to criminalize lying about military service or military medals awarded. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =s109-1998" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The court should have ruled only on the matter before it at the time.

The court should wait until a law is enacted to criminalize “lying about one’s height, weight, age, or financial status on Match.com or Facebook” etc. to rule on it.

To allow people to freely lie about military service or medals received, damages those that have served and/or received medals by lessening the value of the service and/or medals.

Just my humble opinion.

[Pawpaw]

As I see it, this lie is an act of fraud. It is defrauding the public trust.

If we, as a country, will not stand up for those who have served above and beyond the call of duty, then we have degraded beyond the point of being relevant or useful.

I served my country for over 22 years and got no such honors. However, I knew many who did. I can't remember a single one of those people who advertised their awards. It only became known when they were required to wear their full dress uniform, and even then they downplayed it. Most honestly didn't feel they really deserved the honor.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Shouldn't the law be based on whatever statutes make it a crime to impersonate a Peace Officer?

The problem with the federal law is that it criminalizes speech that does not cause anyone actionable or legally recognized harm.

The Texas Penal Code provision making it illegal to impersonate a peace officer deals with a person pretending to act under the authority of the government prompting someone to submit to their authority to to rely upon the fraudulent conduct.

Chas.

Sec. 37.11. IMPERSONATING PUBLIC SERVANT. (a) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) impersonates a public servant with intent to induce another to submit to his pretended official authority or to rely on his pretended official acts; or

(2) knowingly purports to exercise any function of a public servant or of a public office, including that of a judge and court, and the position or office through which he purports to exercise a function of a public servant or public office has no lawful existence under the constitution or laws of this state or of the United States.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles

How does this ruling square with slander and libel? Would statements like "I believe judge X is taking bribes" be considered constitutionally protected free speech? How about “I once slept with that judge’s (or the president’s) daughter”?

Libel and slander damage another person; i.e. the person about whom the lie was told. Even then, libel and slander are not criminal violations, but they are actionable in civil court for damages.

Accusing a judge of taking a bribe is slander per se (meaning as a matter of law).

Chas.

[VoiceofReason]

Charles

How does this ruling square with slander and libel? Would statements like "I believe judge X is taking bribes" be considered constitutionally protected free speech? How about “I once slept with that judge’s (or the president’s) daughter”?

Libel and slander damage another person; i.e. the person about whom the lie was told. Even then, libel and slander are not criminal violations, but they are actionable in civil court for damages.

Accusing a judge of taking a bribe is slander per se (meaning as a matter of law).

Chas.

And your opinion on my post of Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:50 am please?

I do hope it is appealed.

[Purplehood]

Shouldn't the law be based on whatever statutes make it a crime to impersonate a Peace Officer?

The problem with the federal law is that it criminalizes speech that does not cause anyone actionable or legally recognized harm.

The Texas Penal Code provision making it illegal to impersonate a peace officer deals with a person pretending to act under the authority of the government prompting someone to submit to their authority to to rely upon the fraudulent conduct.

Chas.

Sec. 37.11. IMPERSONATING PUBLIC SERVANT. (a) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) impersonates a public servant with intent to induce another to submit to his pretended official authority or to rely on his pretended official acts; or

(2) knowingly purports to exercise any function of a public servant or of a public office, including that of a judge and court, and the position or office through which he purports to exercise a function of a public servant or public office has no lawful existence under the constitution or laws of this state or of the United States.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.

How about Sarbanes-Oxley? Seriously.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Chas,

How about con'ing naive people, investors, etc? People lose their life long earnings because of one's lies. If this is not illegal, where is justice?

What you list is already illegal. It's fraud, theft, embezzlement, and a number of other crimes may fit the facts.

Chas.

Is it not fraud to impersonate a military person? Must that fraud only be defined as wearing a military uniform you have not earned the right to wear?

No, it is not. "Fraud" is a legally defined term and the elements of fraud do not exist in this context.

Is it not theft to steal the honor and dignity of those who have served and died?

No, it is not legally theft. It is most certainly disrespectful, but not unlawful.

Do those who have earned our nation's highest awards not lose something when an impostor claims to have earned those same honors and appropriates that same dignity?

Not in my mind. I respect those who legitimately wear the Medal of Honor and detest those to falsely claim to have been awarded our nation's highest military honor.

Lying about military service and/or about military medals is not the same as lying about your grandmother or your job or your education, in my opinion. It enters into the criminal realm because it defrauds those who have served and cheapens the meaning of the medals they have earned. It is used to elevate the offender in the eyes of others, to place them in a position of special privilege which they have not earned.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is a distinction, but I disagree that it can constitutionally rise to the level of a criminal act.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one, Charles. There is a very real harm inflicted upon military personnel and veterans when someone who has not earned the right to wear medals or claim meritorious service does so. The purpose of criminal laws is to punish those who deceive or defraud others for personal gain. If this law does not address that, what law does? We have libel laws because not all speech is protected. Why should this speech be protected?

That's precisely the constitutional problem with this absurd law; it criminalizes conduct that does not "deceive or defraud others for personal gain."

I am not defending this guy's actions; I think they were despicable. Let's be honest, the only reason this law is getting any support is because it deals with the military. Many posters have said precisely that. This is a very dangerous and slippery slope to tread. If this is allowed to pass constitutional muster, what is to stop the government from passing a law that makes it a criminal offense to falsely claim to have served 1) in Congress or the Senate; 2) with the Peace Corps; 3) on city counsel; 4) the Keep Friendswood Beautiful Committee, or any number of governmental bodies or boards?

Everyone needs to take a step back from the emotional argument and look at this objectively. Do we really want the government to have the authority to prohibit any lie it chooses? I do not.

Chas.

[VoiceofReason]

No problem Charles, just asking.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I think the court erred.

“There would be no constitutional bar to criminalizing lying about one’s height, weight, age, or financial status on Match.com or Facebook, or falsely representing to one’s mother that one does not smoke, drink alcoholic beverages, is a virgin, or has not exceeded the speed limit while driving on the freeway,” . . . “The sad fact is, most people lie about some aspects of their lives from time to time.”

This law does not criminalize “lying about one’s height, weight, age, or financial status on Match.com or Facebook”. It is narrowly tailored to criminalize lying about military service or military medals awarded. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =s109-1998" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The court should have ruled only on the matter before it at the time.

The court should wait until a law is enacted to criminalize “lying about one’s height, weight, age, or financial status on Match.com or Facebook” etc. to rule on it.

You have missed the point about constitutional protections. The court correctly pointed out that, if this overly broad law were upheld under a constitutional challenge, then it would be possible for Congress to pass laws such as those set out in the opinion. In your example, if the statute prohibiting the "military lie" is upheld, then a challenge to lying to your mother would also have to be upheld, based upon the "military lie" case.

To allow people to freely lie about military service or medals received, damages those that have served and/or received medals by lessening the value of the service and/or medals.

Do you feel this way about someone who lies about serving as a volunteer with the City of Houston Parks Department?

Chas.

[VoiceofReason]

I understand your point. I may not like it but I understand it. Please allow me to digest this for a while.

May I respectfully point out that the subject is not “someone who lies about serving as a volunteer with the City of Houston Parks Department”.

Serving in the military and receiving an Honourable Discharge usually requires above average character, considerable sacrifice and a lot of self discipline. The Medal of Honour is usually awarded posthumously and those that live to receive it have exhibited extreme bravery and sacrifice.

To allow anyone to claim military service or military awards they did not earn cheapens those who did.

My father was an Army Medic in WWII and was at Normandy. He was wounded twice.

I served four years in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam era and did not receive anything other than a National Defence medal, but I am proud to have served.

My son served in the U.S. Air Force during the “Cold War” and was Honourably Discharged.

Maybe I am biased in this discussion.

[gabe]

Charles

How does this ruling square with slander and libel? Would statements like "I believe judge X is taking bribes" be considered constitutionally protected free speech? How about “I once slept with that judge’s (or the president’s) daughter”?

Libel and slander damage another person; i.e. the person about whom the lie was told. Even then, libel and slander are not criminal violations, but they are actionable in civil court for damages.

With all due respect, VoiceofReason, go and file a lawsuit. Really. If you're that fired up, I encourage you to file a civil suit against Xavier Alvarez. That's much more productive than posting on the internet.

As a vet, I think Mr. Alvarez and Mr. McManus are lower than pond scum. Their employers can and should fire them for making false statements on their job applications, and anyone directly harmed by their can sue them, as I'm sure you will this week. However, taking a step back and looking at the big picture, their lies are nothing compared to Sotomayor lying to the Senate and then opposing Otis McDonald's fundamental civil rights.

[psijac]

http://bigpeace.com/mseavey/2010/07/13/ ... -opponent/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think there should be a distinction between some one falsely bragging at a bar and some one lying for political or monetary gain. Looks like this one will have to go all the way to the scotus

[baldeagle]

Is it not fraud to impersonate a military person? Must that fraud only be defined as wearing a military uniform you have not earned the right to wear?

No, it is not. "Fraud" is a legally defined term and the elements of fraud do not exist in this context.

OK, let's discuss the elements of fraud. A person has to knowingly make a material representation that is false, that inures to him or her a benefit and cannot be known to be false by his or her audience, right?
The elements of fraud

To sustain a finding of common law fraud, the trial court in most cases must make findings of fact as to each of the nine elements of fraud. Howell v. Kraft, 10 Wash. App. 266, 517 P.2d 203 (1973). Those elements generally are: (1) a representation of an existing fact, (2) its materiality, (3) its falsity, (4) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth, (5) his intent that it should be acted on by the person to whom it is made, (6) ignorance of its falsity on the part of the person to whom it is made, (7) the latter's reliance on the truth of the representation, (8) his right to rely upon it, and (9) his consequent damage. See Turner v. Enders, 15 Wash .App. 875, 878, 552 P.2d 694 (1976).

It seems to me quite obvious that representing yourself as having served or having earned medals that you did not earn meets elements 1-8 without question. The only element about which there is any doubt is the consequent damage. It seems to me that, unless you narrowly define damage in monetary terms, there is no question that the individual to whom the false statement is made is damaged, because they rely on that representation to make decisions about the other person's trustworthiness, reliability and many other character traits. In the case at hand, the individual represented himself as a Medal Of Honor recipient, fraudulently creating an aura about himself that would damage not only the other city council members but the entire community.

By claiming he is a recipient of the Medal Of Honor, an individual places himself in a special category of citizen that all others will look up to and trust without question. That trust is given merely through the statement that he received the medal. This is a person that, without any regard for his personal safety or survival, will perform extraordinary heroic measures to ensure that I have the best possible outcome. The impostor immediately gains a position of authority and trust to which he is not entitled and from which he can influence others to make decisions (monetary and otherwise) that will impact them personally and impact the community in which they live.

Is it not theft to steal the honor and dignity of those who have served and died?

No, it is not legally theft. It is most certainly disrespectful, but not unlawful.

I'll give you that one.

Do those who have earned our nation's highest awards not lose something when an impostor claims to have earned those same honors and appropriates that same dignity?

Not in my mind. I respect those who legitimately wear the Medal of Honor and detest those to falsely claim to have been awarded our nation's highest military honor.

No offense meant, Charles, but your mind is irrelevant. The question is, are veterans and medal recipients damaged by the false claims of impostors.

Lying about military service and/or about military medals is not the same as lying about your grandmother or your job or your education, in my opinion. It enters into the criminal realm because it defrauds those who have served and cheapens the meaning of the medals they have earned. It is used to elevate the offender in the eyes of others, to place them in a position of special privilege which they have not earned.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is a distinction, but I disagree that it can constitutionally rise to the level of a criminal act.

And clearly I disagree with you as well.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one, Charles. There is a very real harm inflicted upon military personnel and veterans when someone who has not earned the right to wear medals or claim meritorious service does so. The purpose of criminal laws is to punish those who deceive or defraud others for personal gain. If this law does not address that, what law does? We have libel laws because not all speech is protected. Why should this speech be protected?

That's precisely the constitutional problem with this absurd law; it criminalizes conduct that does not "deceive or defraud others for personal gain."

I contend that there is damage, both to the hearers and to class of veterans and medal recipients whose earned place in society are cheapened by the speaker's actions.

I am not defending this guy's actions; I think they were despicable. Let's be honest, the only reason this law is getting any support is because it deals with the military. Many posters have said precisely that. This is a very dangerous and slippery slope to tread. If this is allowed to pass constitutional muster, what is to stop the government from passing a law that makes it a criminal offense to falsely claim to have served 1) in Congress or the Senate; 2) with the Peace Corps; 3) on city counsel; 4) the Keep Friendswood Beautiful Committee, or any number of governmental bodies or boards?

Everyone needs to take a step back from the emotional argument and look at this objectively. Do we really want the government to have the authority to prohibit any lie it chooses? I do not.

Chas.

Clearly no one wants that, at least among the posters on this board. But I disagree with you that harming veterans and medal recipients does not rise to a level sufficient to justify such a law. Nor do I agree that it is a slippery slope to allow such a law to stand. We make similar distinctions, for example (as has been mentioned in this thread), for impersonating law enforcement officers or other government personnel. We all understand that impersonating your grandma is not criminal. Nor would anyone advocate passing a law that said impersonating any other person is a criminal act. I think the same distinction holds for military service. It is a special category of citizenship that justifies laws that protect its status.

I say these things not because I am a veteran. As I've stated on this forum, I do not think that I did anything special by serving. Nor do I think that I should be honored in any way. I felt it was my duty to serve as a grateful citizen of this nation.

However, other veterans, who have paid a heavy price for their service deserve to be treated differently under the law, particularly those who have earned medals for their bravery. My cousin Donald didn't give his life in Vietnam so that his service could be slandered and misrepresented by impostors who seek to gain favor, special status in society or even monetary gain by representing themselves to be members of that elite group who bought our freedom with their blood.

[Purplehood]

As a retired veteran, I have read this topic with some interest.

I have noticed that the current generation has gone from apathetic to enthusiastic supporters of the Military in the face of war. This has happened over and over in our history and is nothing new.

With this renewed interest I have seen alot of folks getting highly upset about the phenomenon of people pretending that they are decorated warriors, often for reasons as simple as a bolster to ones ego (on the part of the perpetrator).

This too has happened through out history. Not just American history, but all of recorded history.

As long as people are people, this strange behavior will continue to happen. It does no material or physical harm to those Military members who have been awarded actual decorations for valor or meritorious service. In some cases it does indeed lessen and cheapen the recognition those same warriors should deserve in the eyes of those that may wonder at the veracity of those same awards. In itself, that is simply a crime that eventually damages the violators integrity that if discovered and brought to light can cause irreparable damage to their own reputation and ego...and rightly so.

Lying is indeed a Constitutional right. I support the Constitutional right to lie. I support all Constitutional rights with equal fervor. And I ignore these ignoramuses that exercise that right by wearing a Uniform and/or Award that they never merited.

[chasfm11]

Why should this speech be protected?

.. because if it isn't, then someone, somewhere gets to make decisions about what is and isn't protected.. and that not what the 1st amendment is all about.

I agree that mis-representing military service and accomplishments is a reprehensible act. But I've seen radical groups of all stripe stand on street corners and say other things that I find reprehensible. In that category, I'd place the "church" group that attends funerals of fallen soldiers and shouts their vitriolic, hate-fulled diatribes. Those are ever bit as offensive to me but they are protected. Disrespecting those who gave their lives for our country is about as despicable as it gets.

We stand firm on the 2nd amendment. None of us wishes to have limitations placed on it. The 1st amendment should be the same.