...about them things you did and the medals you got for them and not get hauled into court anymore.
But, you'll still be a liar. I think I tend to agree with the decision, because the public shaming when it all comes out, (as it invariably does) is probably punishment enough.
And, if you defrauded people with those lies of yours, you can always get hauled into court for that.
As the saying goes: "I like free speech, because then I know who the idiots are".
2 comments:
We do, though, break out the protected nature of speech according to its purpose, though. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not protected when it's done to raise a ruckus, but it is protected, when it's done to warn of an actual fire, for instance.
Lying about receiving medals as a form of protest should be protected, but telling the same lie for personal gain should not be.
But that wasn't the question before the court, because that's not how the law was written.
[sigh]
Eric Hines
Sorry Eric, but I respectfully disagree. For shaming to work, you must first assume the capacity to be ashamed, which more than a few of these cowardly curs are apparently lacking.
Secondly, I reject the premise that lying about military awards "as a form of protest" should be protected anymore than lying that you are an officer of the United States government should be protected as a form of protest (which it is not). And for the same reasons as why you may not pretend to be an officer of the United States government. You are claiming authority you do not possess as a means of cowing opposition to your protest. You are claiming moral authority you do not have.
And what's more, the only means of challenging someone who claims (falsely) that they have earned awards is to accuse them of being liars. Which means actual awardees will be challenged on if their awards were earned. Which means they will suffer ACTUAL loss of respect based on the actions of those liars. Which invalidates the majority opinion that no actual harm can come of these lies (as per the current Act). I think the old SVA was not a perfect law. but I am NEVER a fan of letting "perfect" be the enemy of "good enough". Amend the law, clarify the law, but to throw it out is not something I can support.
Post a Comment