ACLU Opposes Stolen Valor Act

Their position robs from every veteran the credibility of their rank, service, and awards. But, what else would one expect from ACLU?

 

I concur..

 

In this case, yes. freedom to lie about your service is not protected speech!

 

Oh, but it is now 'free speech' under the leadership of BHO or Barry Sotero and has been since 2008 when he won his 'shoe-in' to the WH. The biggest con man is sitting in the WH with questions of credentials. He personally vetted his own thugs into positions of appointments and gave 'czars' oversight...... so we know he is transparent..... we have his word. He stopped the FBI background checks on his own appointments so we can know that he has our security interest at heart when these people can oversight all aspects of law and data concerning us and have access to classified briefings and reports.
Yes the ACLU should now be living high on the hog with its best poster child for 'free speech' and right to mis represent sitting like a dictator in an oval office hatching plans for the NWO. (yes, dripping and drolling sarcasm intended)

The ACLU is a disgusting _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (piece of cow pie), imho, intervening to break down what is good and moral and good for the morale of our people......
and in this case ..........
the very value of awards; of recognition and respect bestowed upon those who've fought our wars with honor and valor and protected our country and have presented themselves so unselfishly. To allow others to mis-represent themselves is to destroy these true testimonies and place in question all such representations. How sad. How very very sad that a group that calls itself as for civil liberties is a union against those who protect ours.

 

Clearly a strawman.

 

I know.

It's strawman defense by a pretty desperate attorney.

The UCMJ clearly outlaws the wearing of unearned medals and decorations by military personnel and the stolen valor act prohibits it for civilians.

The aclu is, of course, trying to circumvent the law and undermine it. As usual.

 

A better question is why does The Rutherford Institute also oppose the Stolen Valor Act.

 

Quit putting laws on the books.

 

The closing paragraph of their brief.

 

:laugh: Sounds a little like John Kerry.

 

I agree.

Fundamentally, those who claim to have received this meritorious awards are committing fraud. Since the U.S. government "owns" these awards (they have conceived and issued them according to a certain set of standards), they have every right to protect the integrity of the awards, much like a private institution has the right to protect their patents and copyrights.

Current law recognizes the rights of publicly funded colleges and universities to copyright their identities (especially sports team logos) and restrict who can manufacture and distribute them, what's the problem with our federal government protecting the integrity of some of our highest awards?

My point was that it was not just a "liberal" group that opposed the law, but also a self-identified conservative group.

 

If one reads the PDF of The Rutherford Institute they would see some areas of argument which they could agree with. Recalling from memory, they discuss the presentation of fictionalized material as being presented as fact: Free speech is invoked as a right of free expression as in a novel presented as based on a real historic event but with fictionalized and false presentations which distort the real facts; as a work of fiction and a free exercise of speech by the author, it is their position that it matters not whether the work is in an obvious way presented as fiction or representing a writer's interpretation, nor does it matter if the intent or the result is that the public is misled. The moral issues are not presented nor contested. Their point is that who ever is part of the public has within their own right to determine what they choose to believe, whether false or true.... and before that exercise of liberty can be controlled and prosecuted, there must be a material demonstration of harm beyond the mere gullibility of the public to willingly accept the untruth. Their own position is that it is as much within the power and responsibility of the public to decide, within the scope of each person, what they choose to believe, whether fact or fiction, as nothing in free speech makes a demand or threatens an obligation that it is accepted as true. Their position is also that the government, which by law has created a special protected class of its own invention, has, by so doing, become a party of interest in the suit which prevents it from separating its own interest from the impartiality of judgement outcomes---------- or, iow, the government by its own participation in enacting a law designed to restrict what may be considered as free speech, is not in a position to consider the constitutional bases of that law as an impartial judge or prosecution. [Admittedly, this is my own paraphrase and understanding.]

In actuality, I find their position offensive and amoral.

However, I do see in their arguments some excellent points being made which should be read by everyone viewing this thread..... with some reflection by each reader concerning the impact upon this position and the implications already existing regarding the rights within free speech...... as in those of a candidate, or the news reporting, or a government official reportedly giving a press conference or summation of a meeting or policy etc., to purposely and intentionally mislead and misinform or misrepresent/mis-characterize so that the public may not be aware of what is true or what is false and is left to their own devices to choose, whether or not the public has time or access to the factual data before making its own decisions.

I think Baptist Believer has presented a very excellent point and argument but it may be moot if it was not presented in the writing of the law, i.e. a patent or copyright or other type of protected property.

This also is the only and major weakness I see in our constitution.......... For it to work and for a people to be worthy of keeping their freedoms and exercise of liberty, it requires that most, if not all, are a moral people and that they are able to control their moral interest in the leadership which they elect. When we elect liars and truce breakers to office, or permit such to continue in office and be reelected, we are essentially saying that they are one of us and have given up our moral ground to them to do as they please.

 

>"You can't pass a law that demands respect for symbols," ACLU attorney Allen Lichtenstein said. "No such law would pass constitutional muster."



AGREE!


>Lichtenstein also likened the wearing of such medals to cross burning. "It can be illegal if it's done for purposes of intimidation," he said. "But you can't ban cross burning at a Klan rally out in the woods where nobody is intimidated. It's offensive, but it isn't illegal."

AGREE!

Lying to get VA benefits, that's a separate matter.

 

>This also is the only and major weakness I see in our constitution..........

Then you must be pleased with the form of the government we now have because our legislative system is a direct result of the Constitution sans the free speech clause. "free speech" is NOT the cause of the objections that people on this list make about our government. The rest of the Constitution is responsible.