Stolen Valor Act is Struck Down by Supreme Court

This is a discussion on Stolen Valor Act is Struck Down by Supreme Court within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by mlr1m Strange, I did not see anything in his post that would lead one to that conclusion. Michael Then you should reread ...

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 87 of 87
Like Tree81Likes

Thread: Stolen Valor Act is Struck Down by Supreme Court

  1. #76
    Senior Member Array Inspector71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    981
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    Strange, I did not see anything in his post that would lead one to that conclusion.

    Michael
    Then you should reread the next to last sentence and I quote "Just bringing up the point that many (some) have medals that are not really earned."
    If you can read this, thank a teacher. Because it's in English, thank a vet

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #77
    Senior Member Array Inspector71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    981
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Don't take it personally dude. If you or someone you know deserves it great. How long you been in? Did I say ALL. I think not. I am talking about MY experience and MY observations form some of the units I have been in. Did I say anything about a particular person? Nope. But I know an aviation MI unit that in Desert Storm almost every SSG and above was given or was put in for an Air Medal or Bronze Star.
    If your experience is different then that is great. Please read my post again if you need to. But if you are trying to tell me every single award given in the army is justified then we have been intwo different armies. Some units give out awards more so than others. I don;t really mind if you disagree.
    Not taking anything personal Dude. Just commenting on your post. Appreciate you giving me a pass this time.
    If you can read this, thank a teacher. Because it's in English, thank a vet

  4. #78
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Originally Posted by mlr1m
    Strange, I did not see anything in his post that would lead one to that conclusion.

    Michael
    Quote Originally Posted by Inspector71 View Post
    Then you should reread the next to last sentence and I quote "Just bringing up the point that many (some) have medals that are not really earned."
    Went back and read the post to make sure. Yup nothing in it said that any of the members of your post did not ear their medals. It just said that some people were awarded medals they did not earn.

    Michael
    atctimmy likes this.

  5. #79
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Inspector71 View Post
    Then you should reread the next to last sentence and I quote "Just bringing up the point that many (some) have medals that are not really earned."
    Still trying to figure out how "many (some)" equates to accusing the members of your post (which post is it anyway?) of not having earned their medals.

    Guess we should have an English major figure it out.

  6. #80
    Senior Member Array Inspector71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    981
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    Went back and read the post to make sure. Yup nothing in it said that any of the members of your post did not ear their medals. It just said that some people were awarded medals they did not earn.

    Michael
    So whose were earned and whose were not? From his experience and observation it could be anybody, even some of my post members who served in Desert Storm and beyond. No harm ,no foul, just an internet message board with people voicing opinions and hearsay. Nothing more.
    If you can read this, thank a teacher. Because it's in English, thank a vet

  7. #81
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,819
    Interesting read. Not directly related and a few years old but still pertinent today:
    Is the U.S. giving out too many medals? - World news - Brave New World - msnbc.com

    And I must reiterate again: I am not talking about any one single person..I do not wish to demean folks that deserve awards...like our fathers and grandfathers before us.

  8. #82
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Protect valor with transparency - Roanoke.com

    Editorial: Protect valor with transparency

    The Pentagon finally sees the wisdom of creating a public database of military honors.

    Military veterans have had no greater friend in Congress than Virginia Sen. Jim Webb. He chose not to seek re-election this year, but he is still working on military issues. In response to the recent Supreme Court ruling overturning the Stolen Valor Act, Webb announced plans to introduce a new version of the law. He should find a different project for his final days in office. The Defense Department is working on a better solution.

    The Stolen Valor Act made it a crime to lie about having received a military honor. The court correctly struck that down on free speech grounds, but some of the justices left room for a revised version to pass constitutional muster.

    Webb believes his Military Service Integrity Act will meet the court's requirements. It would make it a crime to receive tangible benefit from lying about military service or awards. If one gets a job, receives government benefits or, in the case of a candidate, voter support based on false statements about military service, it would be illegal under Webb's proposal.

    SNIP

    After the Supreme Court overturned the Stolen Valor Act, however, officials changed their minds and now actively are looking into creating such a database. When it happens, it will prove a valuable resource.

    Americans should happily pick up the cost to protect the integrity of military honors. If the Pentagon successfully deploys its database, Webb's and similar bills will become even more irrelevant. As is so often the case, transparency is preferable to censorship.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  9. #83
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,092
    ^^ Politics aside, making it easier for people to validate a person's claimed military service record would resolve much of the issue of material harm being done, IMO. Those materially harmed will have simple recourse via terminating the relationship. If firms/agencies don't give a rat's eyebrow over hiring confirmed liars, then more power to 'em. The rest will know such people for who they are.
    DoctorBob likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  10. #84
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Lotus222 View Post
    Supreme Court strikes down Stolen Valor Act for military medals - BostonHerald.com

    By a 6-3 decision, the high court said the right to lie about medals and military service, while unattractive, is protected by the First Amendment.
    So does that mean someone can now lie to the police and in court with the protection of the 1st amendment?? Just asking..........
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  11. #85
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,092
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowman View Post
    So does that mean someone can now lie to the police and in court with the protection of the 1st amendment?? Just asking..........
    Of course not. A person has the right to speak. A person or entity materially harmed by that has the right to pursue damage claims. And a person or entity desiring to prove claims being made has every right to evaluate them to avoid material harm from false claims (ie, in hiring, contracting for services, whatever). Perjury causes material harm to the pursuit of justice and resolution of a case, and (hopefully) it'll always be treated as such.
    DoctorBob likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  12. #86
    Senior Member Array Skygod's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    642
    This has to be one of the most pathetic cases I've seen in a while regarding "posers" and the Stolen Valor ACt.

    A Mr. Richard Johnson who was claiming to be a "Weapons Specialist" on Facebook with the United States Army Special Forces. He spoke multiple languages and from 2005 had enlisted and rose through the ranks so quickly he had become a Captain. Yeah, mmm, hmmmm.

    His profile photo is this:











    There's only one huge problem with the photo..............................It is a photo of a United States Army Ranger, 1st 75th Ranger Batt that was KIA October 1st, 2009 in Kandahar Province, Afghan. His name is Sgt Roberto Sanchez.

    The Facebook link is now dead. Professionalsoldiers.com caught the clown and many messages got sent to his personal Facebook page from current and former SF Team guy's. Draw your own conclusions. Total dirtbag.

    Here is his link:

    http://www.1stbn75thrgrregtmemorial....orySanchez.htm
    Attached Images
    Perhaps your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

  13. #87
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Still trying to figure out how "many (some)" equates to accusing the members of your post (which post is it anyway?) of not having earned their medals.

    Guess we should have an English major figure it out.
    Nowadays it seems that you cannot mention any wrong doing by an individual member of a group without being accused of insinuating that all members of the group are guilty. While sometimes that may be true that a person is indeed trying to make the whole group look bad in most cases I do not believe that to be the case. The instinct to protect your own regardless of his guilt or innocence can do more harm than good to the group you are attempting to protect.

    We see it on this forum all the time. If someone brings up an act of wrong doing on the part of LEO's, Unions, soldiers, politicians or person of color you are instantly accused of trying to go after the whole group. When in fact you are actually only pointing out one individual in the group. Its the lock step joining of arms by the offended group that makes them look bad to reasonable people.
    After all why would members of a group object to a member of their group being arrested for spousal abuse unless they were abusers themselves. Why would a LEO object to another member of that group being investigated for illegal activities unless they themselves felt that what the member did was permissible?

    You only need look at our own government to see this in action. One member of government is accused of wrong doing and his guilt or innocence is decided not by the evidence but by whether or not his group has more votes than the other group. Can you tell me how this is any different than deciding guilt by the color of ones skin?

    Michael

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

georgia dmv bronze star

,

history of stolenstolen valor

,

lying about having a medical license

,

medal of honor replica repelled stolen volor act

,

military forum stolen valor

,

richard johnson stolen valor

,

ruger mini 14 glock remington 870 stolen

,

stolen valor act 2011

,

stolen valor act of 2011

,

stolen valor act supreme court

,

stolennvalor supreme. court glock fourm

,

supreme court overturned the stolen valor act houston area army veteran in appeal court

,

supreme court overturns stolen valor act

,

supreme court repels stolen valor

Click on a term to search for related topics.