D bag of the year.... Tim poe

[jimmydean]

http://thinkprogress.org/election/20...worth-service/

How about this asshole?

Stay classy Joe Walsh.

...where Tammy Duckworth stands...

[X3pilot]

What does some douchebag politician have to do Stolen Valor act? He's just an a$$hole, much like the a$$holes who pretend or embellish their military service.

[stevew]

What does some douchebag politician have to do Stolen Valor act? He's just an a$$hole, much like the a$$holes who pretend or embellish their military service.

the same supreme court you love for health care also thinks lying is protected free speech....

[X3pilot]

Alvarez is another douchebag politician. A lying douchebag politician, but I repeat myself.

Walsh should leave the her alone, leave the military service out of it. True, she needs to state what her views on a wide range of subjects are, but if she wants to talk about her service, she damn well has earned the right to.

[JohnE]

Stolen Valor Act will be back. Its needs to be re tooled a bit, but it will be back and will pass.

[$tinkle]

The Court held that First Amendment free speech rights trumped integrity and honor

so how can libel/slander be illegal, but stolen valor not?

mind.
boggled.

[dante]

so how can libel/slander be illegal, but stolen valor not?

I believe that libel/slander are illegal because it causes specific harm to the individual, whereas stolen valor does not.

Lying is either protected speech or not based on the harm that it causes: Lying to investigators hinders an investigation and therefore is illegal. Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater also causes harm to the people who are trampled. Lying for financial gain robs the people who are paying you, and that includes making false claims about your product.

However the person in question didn't lie for financial gain (he'd already been elected to the board), and there weren't specific people who were "injured" and so the court deemed that protecting Constitutional Free Speech was more important. Not saying I agree with the decision, but I can at least understand the reasoning behind it.

What's interesting is that Scalia/Thomas/Alito, all supposed "Strict Constitutionalists" voted in favor of the federal government being able to upend parts of the Constitution... I guess "strict adherence to the US Constitution" only goes so far when pushing your ideological viewpoint?

[$tinkle]

Lying for financial gain robs the people who are paying you, and that includes making false claims about your product.

right.
being awarded medals directly translates to financial compensation [at times at the expense of other seemingly less viable candidates], hence fraud.

this is why i'm confused.

What's interesting is that Scalia/Thomas/Alito, all supposed "Strict Constitutionalists" voted in favor of the federal government being able to upend parts of the Constitution... I guess "strict adherence to the US Constitution" only goes so far when pushing your ideological viewpoint?

moar confusion/bewilderment