TexasCHLforum.com

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/ ... uit-court/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The whole thing makes me feel a little sick to the stomach.

There is a reason it's known as the "9th Circus".

How come they never interpret 2A issues that boadly?

When it wasn't "right" to lie or commit fraud, regardless you go to jail like blaggo!

Considering the lies politicians say to get elected and Supreme Court Justices say to get confirmed...

"Liar, liar, pants on fire".

Then he/she grows up and is elected/appointed to something.

Yes, it is. The first amendment applies: free speech is free, especially if you don't like it.

Would YOU want to be put in jail for lying?

The free speech to tell a lie that dishonors those that protected one's free speech is now illegal. How ironic I hope they sleep well at night.

nitrogen wrote:Yes, it is. The first amendment applies: free speech is free, especially if you don't like it.

Would YOU want to be put in jail for lying?

No I would not. However, I feel as though veterans who are recipients of certain honors, such as the Medal of Honor, are granted certain privileges as a result of their being awarded such an honor. To receive these privileges without earning them is much like a con-man assuming an identity for financial gains. I believe it to be akin to impersonating an officer of the law, or impersonating a federal agent.
I also feel as though this man dishonors all of those who have rightfully be awarded the Medal of Honor, and those who have fought and died for this country.
I agree that the First Amendment is a necessary and extremely well thought out amendment enacted by our forefathers, and that the amendment covers many aspects of free speech; I just don't believe that in this case our forefathers would agree that this man's lies are covered by the First Amendment.

Of course, I am not a lawyer, and this is only my .02.

I hate to agree with the 9th Circuit Court, but I must. The law is absurd and the only reason it has any support is because it deals with the military.

Think about what this law does; it makes a false statement not made under oath a criminal offense. That's ridiculous. As the Court noted:

9th Circuit Court wrote:“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.”

Chas.

This is another area of great confliction for me. As has been pointed out, lying is indeed protected under the first amendment of the constitution. We certainly would not want someone charged for, say claiming:

to have been King Henry the 8th in a past life
to have beaten Larry Byrd at one-on-one in college
catching a fish that was "this" big

People are, however, prohibited from fictitiously claiming:

to have a bomb in their backpack in a public place
to be a police officer

Very similar issue to burning the flag.

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?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I hate to agree with the 9th Circuit Court, but I must. The law is absurd and the only reason it has any support is because it deals with the military.

Think about what this law does; it makes a false statement not made under oath a criminal offense. That's ridiculous. As the Court noted:

9th Circuit Court wrote:“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.”

Chas.

I can see both sides of the issue, and while my sense of justice says that behavior that can best be summarized as impersonating a war hero should be a criminal offense, my understanding of law, as limited as it is, says a simple non sworn false statement shouldn't be a crime.

However, I think that wearing a service decoration that was not earned or presenting a false document that purported to show a service decoration that was never actually awarded could be criminalized as a form of forgery, possession of a forged instrument, or counterfeiting if our lawmakers would give a few minutes thought to it.