| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| 9th Circuit Panel Rules 2-1 Against Stolen Valor Act |
| 2010-08-18 |
| The Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court panel in California ruled Tuesday. That means I can start wearing my judge's robes again? And holding court in my basement? |
| Posted by: Anonymoose |
| #22 I'm not a Russian but I play one on the Internet. |
| Posted by: badanov 2010-08-18 23:57 |
| #21 Well, honey, after I became the 15th man to walk on the moon, I came back and started my own company which specializises in putting out oil well fires. It did so well that I could take up race car driving and win the Indy 500. Twice. Would you like another drink? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2010-08-18 23:38 |
| #20 In real life I yam an architect. |
| Posted by: Art Vandalay masquerading as Alaska Paul 2010-08-18 23:18 |
| #19 I see an argument that copyright laws are unconstitutional as applied to bloggers because they are just exercising their free speech rights. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-08-18 22:06 |
| #18 So I suppose false advertising and even perjury are free speech, too. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2010-08-18 19:08 |
| #17 This is a decision that cuts to the quick our ability to be a civil society and turns us toward barbarism. This is not just about stolen valor, but also how we deal with each other. It is an endorsement of taqqiya, not our historic virtues. This is a decision so far divorced from what the people believe that it threatens the credibility of the court and the legitimacy of its laws. One wonders what decision they will render that will be remembered as the second Dred Scott. Let's pray the next one does not also lead to a civil war. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-08-18 18:10 |
| #16 More... In a somewhat incredulous dissenting opinion, Judge Jay Bybee (best known for his work on so-called torture memos at the Office of Legal Counsel) contends his colleagues are deliberately ignoring a series of statements from the Supreme Court declaring false speech to be unworthy of protection in most instances. The Supreme Court has told us consistently that the general rule is that false statements of fact are unprotected and has carved out certain limited exceptions to this principle in certain contexts. ... AlvarezÂ’s knowingly false statement is excluded from the limited spheres of protection carved out by the Supreme Court for false statements of fact necessary to protect speech that matters, and it is therefore not entitled to constitutional protection. While Alvarez, by all accounts, became a laughingstock and no longer sits on the water board, the appeals court ruling could have implications for other efforts to police false statements in the context of political ads and campaigns. The decision could also become a political football, much like the court's famous/infamous Pledge of Allegiance ruling. But there is this wrinkle facing new efforts to blast the far-out liberal 9th Circuit: all three judges involved in Tuesday's decision were Republican appointees. Smith and Bybee were named to the bench by President George W. Bush. Nelson was appointed by President George H.W. Bush. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2010-08-18 17:14 |
| #15 The dissenting justice insisted that the majority refused to follow clear Supreme Court precedent that false statements of fact are not entitled to First Amendment protection. Which means you bump it up to SCOTUS. And they overturn it. Again. You've been down that road before, haven't you boys? Many times, as I recall. Maybe they are impersonating federal judges... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2010-08-18 15:54 |
| #14 Some wanna be says he received medals he never received and that legal? Come on 9th circus. If someone posed as a Federal judge, a lawyer, a police officer, doctor, nurse, teacher, or engineer, there would be penalties. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-08-18 15:20 |
| #13 So, according to this the Rantburg Moderators can declare themselves Judges of the U.S. Supreme Court and simply overturn the 9th circus court rulings as needed. And, where the rulings don't personally effect them (i.e. they don't gain from it) its OK. Right? Fraud, weather you gain from it or not, is W-R-O-N-G. Claiming military service falsely is fraud. I never served in the military and I never claimed to have. To do so would be just plain WRONG. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-08-18 14:52 |
| #12 All the RightHaven LLC suits are in the ninth circus clowns.. Current suits: search nevada 9th circuit here for RightHaven |
| Posted by: Water Modem 2010-08-18 13:33 |
| #11 Would it be okay if I passed myself off as a federal judge? I really wouldn't wanna stoop that low, but it might prove advantageous in some situations. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2010-08-18 13:31 |
| #10 It's a strange ruling. The Court asserts that it is permissible to lie about one's military service so long as one is not doing so in order to obtain something of value. When does one lie about military service so as NOT to obtain something of value? If I were, while in a local bar, to claim that I was a Navy SEAL and had a Navy Cross, and someone bought me a drink because of that claim, isn't that something of value? If the pretty young lady at the end of the bar was so impressed with my claim of military service that she took me home for the night, isn't that something of value? If my claims caused other citizens to be sufficiently impressed with me that they elected me to the local library board, isn't that something of value? When exactly does someone lie about military service and not obtain something of 'value' in return, even if that something is the opinion of others? I don't get it, I really don't. PS: for the logic-impaired, I was never a Navy SEAL and don't have a Navy Cross. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2010-08-18 13:17 |
| #9 So if someone flashed these badges and said I'm with Sam, it's ok now? As long as no 'harm' is done? /sarc off |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-08-18 13:12 |
| #8 If a witness lied about their military service in a court of law, would that also be OK? |
| Posted by: charger 2010-08-18 13:05 |
| #7 I've painted this metal yellow and sold it as Gold. That's now free speech. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2010-08-18 12:40 |
| #6 What do we need this circuit court for? All of their decisions are wrong and politically motivated. The 9th circus should be disbanded. |
| Posted by: newc 2010-08-18 12:07 |
| #5 Yet occasionally, the 9th gets one right. Post- Heller but pre-McDonald, the 9th held that state and local govt was bound by the 2nd, not just the Feds, AND the main reason was to prevent tyranical gov't. |
| Posted by: Dopey Chineck9731 2010-08-18 11:10 |
| #4 This is why the 9th has so many decisions overturned as well. The 9th is a classic case for term limits for judges. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2010-08-18 10:47 |
| #3 The 9th Circuit panel is the best argument I have ever seen for some sort of removal mechanism for inept, agenda driven ideologues who attempt to legislate from the bench. The decision in the Stolen Valor act is just plain wrong. The First Amendment provides the liberty to speak truth, as you believe it. It does not provide a protected pedestal for politicians and wannabee heroes to lie bald-faced about their military service and their record of valor under fire for the purpose of presenting themselves in a false light. These people bring dishonor to themselves, as moral and physical cowards, and they hold cheaply the regard and reverence that we have for the military heroes who impose their own bodies between us and evil. Perhaps it is telling about the integrity of this court of appeals, that they would take such a diseased perspective on one of our fundamental liberties. “Liberty without virtue is license.” |
| Posted by: B Dubya 2010-08-18 10:34 |
| #2 In other wacky 9th Circuit news: Mud is declared to be a pollutant. Therefore, all logging roads must be reinforced to prevent them from mud polluting. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-08-18 10:10 |
| #1 So it may be immoral, but it's not illegal. I wonder if this has any impact on that law that makes it a felony to lie to a gov't agent. |
| Posted by: Omailet Henbane2763 2010-08-18 09:55 |