Stolen Valor, should not be ignored!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Now that our blessed government has ruled lying like a rug to be a-ok. We will see the usual roaches scurry back out into the limelight! A shame that such people get to steal from the sacrifices of others, from men and women that served honorably and many that gave their lives in heroic deeds. I pity people that think it no biog deal for by doing so they show zero appreciation of the sacrifices that have protected them their entire lives and their families as well! Simply a crying shame. I know I will never ignore such liars!!-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://scotty-stolenvaloroffendersexposed.blogspot.com/

PRAA = AIRCREW SURVIVAL EQUIPMENTMAN AIRMAN APPRENTICE

Where do you even start here ??

[logroller]

Plurality--
“Sworn testimony is quite distinct from lies not spoken under oath and simply intended to puff up oneself.”
(Clearly.)
“The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society.”
(We're either on an extraordinary course or are no longer a free society...likely a blend of both.)
“… the Act’s breadth of coverage could be diminished or eliminated by a more finely tailored statute, for example, a statute that requires a showing that the false statement caused specific harm or is focused on lies more likely to be harmful or on contexts where such lies are likely to cause harm.”
(how broad is the wording of law being challenged? )


“The statute seeks to control and suppress all false statements on this one subject in almost limitless times and settings. And it does so entirely without regard to whether the lie was made for the purpose of material gain.”
(This seems a lot like the requirements for slander and libel; reasonable limits on speech.)



Dissent--


“Because a sufficiently comprehensive database [of military awards] is not practicable, lies about military awards cannot be remedied by what the plurality calls ‘counterspeech.’”
( Should free speech be limited by that which is verifiable? )


“But much damage is caused, both to real award recipients and to the system of military honors, by false statements that are not linked to any financial or other tangible reward.”
(Not being a vet myself, I'm curious to know if veterans here feel if their own honorable service awards are damaged by posers? )

[ConHog]

Plurality--
“Sworn testimony is quite distinct from lies not spoken under oath and simply intended to puff up oneself.”
(Clearly.)
“The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society.”
(We're either on an extraordinary course or are no longer a free society...likely a blend of both.)
“… the Act’s breadth of coverage could be diminished or eliminated by a more finely tailored statute, for example, a statute that requires a showing that the false statement caused specific harm or is focused on lies more likely to be harmful or on contexts where such lies are likely to cause harm.”
(how broad is the wording of law being challenged? )


“The statute seeks to control and suppress all false statements on this one subject in almost limitless times and settings. And it does so entirely without regard to whether the lie was made for the purpose of material gain.”
(This seems a lot like the requirements for slander and libel; reasonable limits on speech.)



Dissent--


“Because a sufficiently comprehensive database [of military awards] is not practicable, lies about military awards cannot be remedied by what the plurality calls ‘counterspeech.’”
( Should free speech be limited by that which is verifiable? )


“But much damage is caused, both to real award recipients and to the system of military honors, by false statements that are not linked to any financial or other tangible reward.”
(Not being a vet myself, I'm curious to know if veterans here feel if their own honorable service awards are damaged by posers? )

Correct on your point about the law, the unconstitutional law did in fact make it illegal to say anything . Hell a little kid could have been arrested for saying he was a soldier during Halloween.

to your second question, couldn't care less what others claim, has no bearing on me or anything I did.

[fj1200]

Now that our blessed government has ruled lying like a rug to be a-ok.

So you're not OK with the First Amendment? Or we should let bad law stand just because you agree with it? You could start a thread about how you would repeal the First and replace it with one that meets with your approval, I dare say you might could get quite a bit of agreement on that.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So you're not OK with the First Amendment? Or we should let bad law stand just because you agree with it? You could start a thread about how you would repeal the First and replace it with one that meets with your approval, I dare say you might could get quite a bit of agreement on that.

The law just struck down was in effect for years ,only people affected by it were the lying b@stards that tried to steal glory from honorable men and women's sacrifices. No innocent people suffered.
Are you upset those lying b@stards could not so freely ply their trade? Do tell... --Tyr

[ConHog]

So you're not OK with the First Amendment? Or we should let bad law stand just because you agree with it? You could start a thread about how you would repeal the First and replace it with one that meets with your approval, I dare say you might could get quite a bit of agreement on that.

Tyr is a big believer in only defending the rights that HE agrees with. Fuck everyone else.

[fj1200]

The law just struck down was in effect for years ,only people affected by it were the lying b@stards that tried to steal glory from honorable men and women's sacrifices. No innocent people suffered.
Are you upset those lying b@stards could not so freely ply their trade? Do tell... --Tyr

5 and a half years from being signed to struck down. Not exactly "years" in Constitutional terms but yes the First does protect the lying bastards as well as the rest of us. I'd be upset if the Constitution were not upheld for your expedience.

Tyr is a big believer in only defending the rights that HE agrees with. Fuck everyone else.

That's apparently the only explanation here.

[ConHog]

5 and a half years from being signed to struck down. Not exactly "years" in Constitutional terms but yes the First does protect the lying bastards as well as the rest of us. I'd be upset if the Constitution were not upheld for your expedience.



That's apparently the only explanation here.

To be fair to Tyr, he's not alone. Look at two issues like gun ownership and gay marriage. Each has defenders who are simultaneously trying to take the other away from someone else.

People who don't understand that the rights which we should defend most strongly are those with which we disagree the most are stupid.

[fj1200]

... he's not alone.

No doubt, it takes courage and honor to stand up for the rights of even those you disagree with.

[ConHog]

No doubt, it takes courage and honor to stand up for the rights of even those you disagree with.

But it's easier to yell "shut up, dems bad you leave if you don't agree with me"

then to actually think and realize the truth of what we're saying here.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Recent research shows that those guilty of having Stolen Valor come out to defend their actions on blogs, forums , etc. They often do this by decrying the attack on the 1st Amendment!
While what they really mean is it's nobody's damn business how much the lying b@stards lie!!
I myself find such trash talk a poor substitute for defending honor and integrity.
And those vomiting it out to be shills of the lowest order IMHO.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No doubt, it takes courage and honor to stand up for the rights of even those you disagree with.

As it does for defending those unable to do so for themselves because in their sacrifice they died defending this great nation!
Defending somebody's right to be a damn lying b@stard seems to thrill you and your friend.
Usually defending honor and integrity is -Not about defending the right to lie and steal! That you think it is speaks volumes. -Tyr

[ConHog]

Recent research shows that those guilty of having Stolen Valor come out to defend their actions on blogs, forums , etc. They often do this by decrying the attack on the 1st Amendment!
While what they really mean is it's nobody's damn business how much the lying b@stards lie!!
I myself find such trash talk a poor substitute for defending honor and integrity.
And those vomiting it out to be shills of the lowest order IMHO.-Tyr

Have you any proof of this "recent research?"

I'm guessing not.

Making studies up without providing proof of such says a lot about a person's honor IMHO

[gabosaurus]

If it was a crime to lie, cheat and steal, this country wouldn't have any Congressional representatives. They would all be in jail.

As long as it is legal to buy and sell military ensignia, uniforms and medals, people are going to claim what they represent. Take care of the former before you protest about the latter.