One last Stolen Valor post today
TSO called just as I was leaving to get my 2 MacDonald’s fish sandwiches for $3 (cuz I’m hungry, but I’m cheap), and he told me I should read the New York Times report on the Supreme Court business yesterday, so I did, cuz I always do everything TSO tells me. The Times, which by the way, filed an amicus brief on Alvarez’ behalf, seems to think that the Court will uphold the Act and Alvarez’ punishment;
[Alvarez’] case ran into trouble at the Supreme Court as it emerged that many justices accepted two fundamental propositions. First, most of the justices seemed to accept that the First Amendment does not protect calculated falsehoods that cause at least some kinds of harm. Second, there seemed to be something like a consensus that the government has a substantial interest in protecting the integrity of its system for honoring military distinction.
To arrive at those two propositions, the justices worked through any number of hypothetical questions and worried about the collateral damages to free speech values that a ruling upholding the law might generate.
They also recounted two admissions by Alvarez’ attorney that may have flipped the case in our favor. When asked by Kagan what free speech will be chilled by the SVA, Libby responded;
Mr. Libby’s response seemed to surprise Justice Kagan. “It’s not that it may necessarily chill any truthful speech,” he said. “We certainly concede that one typically knows whether or not one has won a medal or not.”
Justice Kagan considered what she had just heard. “So, boy, I mean, that’s a big concession, Mr. Libby,” she said.
Mr. Libby also acknowledged that the government may punish false speech that is intended to obtain something of value. Chief Justice Roberts asked whether Mr. Alvarez, who was politically active, benefited from his lie. Mr. Libby said that was possible.
The chief justice said this, too, was “an awfully big concession.”
The Times concludes;
There was universal agreement on one point at Wednesday’s argument. No one spoke up for Mr. Alvarez, including his lawyer.
“Certainly, people are entitled to be upset by these false claims,” Mr. Libby said. “I mean, I’m personally upset by these false claims.”
Yeah, you’re pretty much screwed if your lawyer thinks you’re a jerkweed.
Category: Legal, Phony soldiers
Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have an acknowledgment by the SC that the 1st Amendment is not a blanket amnesty on the public behavior of any T.D.or H. that wishes to float fantasy as acceptable public discourse?
One can hope. If this falls out as a victory for the Stolen Valor Law it will be a victory for the health of the United States indeed, one that’s been a long time in coming.
The New York Times filed an amicus brief on behalf of Alvarez? What ever happened to reporting the news, rather than creating it?
Hopefully the Supremes have some common sense.
The papers have the same knee-jerk reaction to any perceived infringement on the 1st like the NRA does on the 2nd (and back off, I’m life member.) Maybe since this seeks to punish untruths, they feel like their primary product is threatened.
I have been thinking about what some others have said, regarding the wide latitude that SVA gets in the way it is written. Some have argued that they don’t care as much about a guy bragging in a bar in order to curry favor with a woman he has his eye on, however, I disagree, since if the falshood told by the sooper trooper were enough to get that favor from the woman, he is benefitting from his lies in the carnal way.
The Times article says; The brief argued that most false statements are better addressed by exposing them in the marketplace of ideas than by punishing them as crimes.
I think they consider themselves the marketplace of ideas, and with the Act, the government is cutting into their business. I understand it, because Stolen Valor is our bread and butter here at TAH, but I don’t see any shortage of phonies resulting from this decision. There aren’t fewer bank robberies and that’s been illegal for a while.
Mr. Libby’s response seemed to surprise Justice Kagan. “It’s not that it may necessarily chill any truthful speech,” he said. “We certainly concede that one typically knows whether or not one has won a medal or not.”
“Won a medal” indeed.
MEDALS ARE EARNED.
Perhaps if someone were to “explain” to this Libby character how one “wins” a Purple Heart, he’d have a much better understanding.
“Win” has several definitions as a transitive verb, to include “to gain by expenditure of effort”, which is basically the definition of earn. I respect the fact that those who received high decorations prefer the term “recipient”, and appreciate their humility. That said, use of the word win in connection with medals does not indicate a lack of appreciation for their value and meaning.
I would caution against trying to determine a Justice’s final vote based on questions or comments during the proceeding. I remind you that nobody grilled Justice Sotomayor in the Senate harder than Linsay Graham who then gave a big doofus shucks and voted for her anyway.
Well, COB, that may have been Ole Linsay just wanting to go along to get along, and not be seen as being mean to the “wise Latina”.
COB’s right, even in a trial court – the judge can grill one side mercilessly, then rule in favor of the other. Happens all the time. The only way to know is to read the opinion when it comes out.
Yeah, you’re pretty much screwed if your lawyer thinks you’re a jerkweed.
I suspect some ironic humor here, but taken literally it’s not so. You can get good results for clients even if you think (and admit) that they’re jerkweeds. Admitting the obvious helps the lawyer to keep his credibility, while he argues the points that can make his case.
I would have to second the “you’re pretty much screwed if your lawyer thinks you’re a jerkweed”
I personally think this is fraud cut and dried, especially because there is always some form of gain when SVA violations happen.
@7 So, OK, guess we should all just ignore centuries of tradition about what military words mean just because, you know, you say so. It certainly wouldn’t do for any of us to suggest that our superiors in the civilian world might expect being laughed at when they insult us by misusing words with specific meaning in military circles.
But maybe you shouldn’t hold your breath. Words do have meaning even when folks try to change them. Or simply fail to understand their nuance.
“Words do have meaning even when folks try to change them. Or simply fail to understand their nuance.”
Exactly C6’S point OWB.
COB speaks!?!
COB6 for SCOTUS.
We win battles. And you can’t say that they were just handed to us. OK, maybe a few of them.