The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Justice Kennedy announced a plurality opinion – joined by the Chief Justice, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Sotomayor – and concluding that the Stolen Valor Act infringes on protected speech. The plurality reasoned that, with only narrow exceptions, content-based restrictions on speech face strict scrutiny, and are therefore almost always unconstitutional. False statements of fact do not fall within one of these exceptions, and so the Stolen Valor Act can survive strict scrutiny only if it is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. The Court concluded that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional because the Government had not shown that the statute is necessary to protect the integrity of the system of military honors – the interest the Government had identified in support of the Act.

Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Kagan, concurred separately, concluding that the Stolen Valor Act, as drafted, violates intermediate scrutiny. These Justices argued that intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate standard because the Government should have some ability to regulate false statements of fact. However, because the statute, as drafted, applies even in family, social, or other private contexts where lies will often cause little harm; it includes few other limits on its scope, and it creates too significant a burden on protected speech. The concurring Justices believe that the Government could achieve its goals in a less burdensome way, and so they too held the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional. This opinion leaves open the possibility that Congress will re-write the law more narrowly. Three Justices, led by Justice Alito, dissented.

ErikO wrote:And yet it's still liabelous to call a bad doctor a quack. Somehow this seems to fit.

CrazyWolf wrote:I'm fine with this. Fraudulent posing is still illegal. Posing without committing fraud is just, well, very very sad, and should open the poser to public mockery and scorn. Having a law against that seems unnecessary.

hagagaga wrote:It may be unconstitutional, but that doesn't make the violators any less despicable.

ErikO wrote:

CrazyWolf wrote:I'm fine with this. Fraudulent posing is still illegal. Posing without committing fraud is just, well, very very sad, and should open the poser to public mockery and scorn. Having a law against that seems unnecessary.

Yep. Who needs a law when tar and feathers are still relatively affordable. Self-policing communities work well. The SEALs have a database of fakers. Exposure as a lair and a cheat makes the speeking engagement money dry up pretty fast.

larrymod wrote:The strangest thing about this ruling is Rush Limbaugh's reaction to it:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201206280010

"I Don't Know If They Legalized Pedophilia Or Not!"

Whaaa ?????

goosekiller wrote:If lying about a service record is legal, it should also be legal for anyone who has actually served with bravery and honor to kick said liar's ass.

There are many things that have run amock in this society because the threat of a good old-fashined ass whoopin' has been withdrawn from the equation. Now all of you non-violent types can chastise me with your bullshit.

ErikO wrote: I'd rather get an ass kicking than get tarred and feathered.