What are they thinking?

[searcher66071]

I got this in an email and thought it needed to be shared here. I am appaulled(sp?) at what this means for those who have earned high honors in the military.


http://www.military.com/news/article...ml?ESRC=dod.nl

[wizwar31]

i believe its spelled as "Appalled" and i agree with you. This is ridiculous. They basically set up that law to prevent people from making false claims and then directly benefiting from those lies.

[Petter]

Denver attorney Christopher P. Beall, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, said the Stolen Valor Act is fatally flawed because it doesn't require prosecutors to show anyone was harmed or defamed by the lie.

"The government position was that any speech that's false is not protected by the First Amendment. That proposition is very dangerous," Beall said.


"It puts the government in a much more powerful position to prosecute people for speaking out on things they believe to be true but turn out not to be true," he said.

In the abstract, I agree with the concern he voices. In the specific case of the Stolen Valor Act…how the **** is it supposed to apply? “Oh, I’m terribly sorry, sir; see, I thought I was a war hero, but it was an honest mistake, really.”

[Lindz]

They were thinking this


"the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, said the Stolen Valor Act is fatally flawed because it doesn't require prosecutors to show anyone was harmed or defamed by the lie."

But no one claims to be an ex mil bad ass just for the hell of it. They do it to get some kind of benefit. I assume that would open them up to fraud prosecution.

[Soldiermedic]

This is basically a problem with the language of the law, not the sentiment behind it. It will be rewritten before more lawyers can start using this defense.