©
By Mark Sherman
WASHINGTON
Free-speech cases before the Supreme Court often lead justices to consider far-fetched scenarios, and Wednesday's argument over a law making it a crime to lie about having received top military honors was no exception.
One after another, the justices wanted to know whether a decision upholding the Stolen Valor Act could lead down a slippery slope to new laws against such things as lying about the Holocaust, an extramarital affair, a high school diploma, college degrees or to impress a date.
"Where do you stop?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked.
The justices also suggested it might be possible in this case to uphold the 2006 law anyway by reasoning that Congress has an interest in protecting medals it created to honor war heroes.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who asked about lies about college degrees, also seemed open to sustaining the law.
"Here it does seem to me that you can argue that this is something like a trademark, a medal in which the government and the armed forces have a particular interest, and we could carve out a narrow exception for that. I think we would have to do that," Kennedy said.
The high court has in recent years overwhelmingly rejected limits on speech, striking down a federal ban on videos showing graphic violence against animals and a state law aimed at keep violent video games away from children. The court also rejected the attempt by the father of a dead Marine to sue fundamentalist church members who staged a mocking protest at his son's funeral.
And in 1989, the court said the Constitution protects the burning of the American flag.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the earlier cases made clear that merely offending others by itself is not enough to justify limiting speech.
"So outside of the emotional reaction, where's the harm? And I'm not minimizing it. I, too, take offense when people make these kinds of claims, but I take offense when someone I'm dating makes a claim that's not true," said Sotomayor, who is divorced.
She seemed the least willing member of the court to accept the Obama administration's defense of the law.
A decision is expected by late June.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
At first look
I thought this was a no brainer and would be like "shouting fire in a crowded theatre". That being said I am glad that the high court is taking time with this because it "could" be a potential slippery slope for further things being prohibited as Roberts commented. I think the debate is good and think the bill will eventually be upheld but I like the military honor doctrine being built in the decision.
The First Amendment
Someone boasting about a military honor they did not receive is abhorrent. However, if any constitutional right we have is near absolute, it is our right of free speech. When the government impinges that right, and when we allow it to impinge that right, we are paving the way for curbs not only on our speech, but on freedom of religion and activities that depend on our right to free speech.
The first amendment works. Free access to information allows us to shine a bright light on those who wrongly claim military honors. And when they are shown to be the person who they really are, they inevitably face shame and loss of reputation. There is no need to impact our rights to correct such a wrong.
The Constitution protects
The Constitution protects the right of free speech. Not free lies.
The legal system prosecutes slander and libel cases all the time.
This isn't about people sitting around bars and making up war stories and bragging about false accomplishments. It's about people using fraudulent military records to obtain jobs, promotions, and honors.
Reread the 1st Amendment &
Reread the 1st Amendment & tell us where it bans lying, about anything. It does not & anyone who claims to support the 1st Amendment, no matter how much we may disagree with the subject in question [ie. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie] should know that.
There are laws in place already that punish fraud & obtaining money/property under false pretenses. But if nothing is gained as a result of the lie, then no crime. The law is so broad, ANY simple wearing of a medal can be punished.
**Slander & libel are statements you make about others, not yourself.
Right up the local papers 'ally'....
How many draft dodgers are on the court? How many vets,or would THEY excuse themselves?? How many have had their family members serve??? Now that would require reporters so really serve us and do some work, but 'their' 1% would have a fit that run the papers and broadcasters!
In other words
someone could be in a bar, and claim to be a fireman, policeman, FBI or CIA agent, or just about anything when trying to impress someone when trying to pick them up for a date. And by some on the Supreme Court, that would not be illegal.
Beware the government the
Beware the government the most when its purposes are beneficent. If Justices Sotomayer and Roberts are considering voting the same way I would not expect a sharply divided court when the opinion is written. Honor the Constitution the way the recipients of the MOH have.
this country is doomed when...
...our high court rules that lying is acceptable over truth. This isn't a little lie or it wouldn't have gotten to the high court in the first place. We hold our America Patriots in very high esteem, I hope.
We all lie
The court is not saying that lying is acceptable over truth. They are saying it is none of the states business how an individual represents themselves. The country is doomed when we expect the government to lock up people over what they say. The first amendment covers freedom of speech which includes liars. Everyone in America would be in prison if lying was a crime.
You have to be kidding!
Poor comparison. How about comparing people who lie about military service to people who lie about passing medical boards, or air traffic control exams. Where do you draw the line as to when it is O.K. to lie?
What in the world are we teaching our kids?
Makes one wonder who lied about their credentials that qualified them to be on the court.