First Amendment violation?

POSTED BY: fredgiblet
UPDATED: Saturday, January 19, 2008 03:24
VIEWED: 5722
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:51 AM

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/01/04/state/n053
954S17.DTL

Discuss.

EVILDINOSAUR

Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:18 AM

I would say he is in no way protected by the first ammendment

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

GEEZER

Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:23 AM

Shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire is making a false statement. Should the person doing so be held not liable for injuries and damage under the First Amendment?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:09 AM

Different concept, Geeze.

No harm to another person could really come of this morons abject stupidity, so he gets a pass on free speech grounds, in my opinion.

Nowhere in the first amendment does it say it has to be honest speech, and that's a scary road to go down if someone wants to mandate it so.

That bein said, legally, no... but his employer is within THEIR rights to immediately fire his ass and the local media is well within THEIR rights of free speech to make him a laughingstock for it.

I just don't see where any LEGAL issue should be make of it - so he's fulla shit, you wanna start arresting people for THAT, start on Capitol Hill.

And bring a BIG paddywaggon.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:15 AM

I don’t think willful deliberate falsehoods need be protected under the Second Amendment. And in fact, it’s not. If you saying something about a person that is deliberate and wrong, you can be sued for slander. And I’m not inclined to have a whole lot of sympathy for any person who lies about having a Medal of Honor, especially if they’ve never even served.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

BADKARMA00

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:36 AM

Well, if I read correctly, then there IS a law, enacted by Congress, making it illegal to make false claims about military honors. From that standpoint, he broke the law, so he's guilty.

Depending on the stupidity level involved, i.e. the government vs. lying jackass, this one could. . .go. . .all. . . the. . .way.

To the supreme court, where of course it will be heard, since the courts at all levels always entertain motions on moronic dumb-shit ideas, while patiently ignoring the important things.

Gosh, that sounds kinda disillusioned doesn't it?

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:39 AM

"I don’t think willful deliberate falsehoods need be protected under the Second Amendment."

They aren't, that's what the First is for, the Second is to protect it effectively.

I don't have any sympathy for em either, none whatever - but THINK for a minute about your own rights, and where that path goes, although the idea of rounding up the entirety of Congess is appealing, it's a bad bad baaaad precedent, and more grease on an awfully slippery slope.

-F

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"I don’t think willful deliberate falsehoods need be protected under the Second Amendment."

They aren't, that's what the First is for, the Second is to protect it effectively.

Oops. I don’t think they should be protected under the First Amendment either.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I don't have any sympathy for em either, none whatever - but THINK for a minute about your own rights, and where that path goes, although the idea of rounding up the entirety of Congess is appealing, it's a bad bad baaaad precedent, and more grease on an awfully slippery slope.

I’m not saying that we criminalize all acts of lying, but I am saying we don’t grant it as a Constitutional right.

If lying were illegal, a man would never stay married.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:08 PM

"then there IS a law, enacted by Congress"

Well, there's this little problem with that.

"Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It's written in such (intended) iron-clad terms for just these kind of instances, the interpretation is always supposed to come down on the side of no, unless explicitly and expressly authorized.

The Constitution is not a list of things WE can do, with all else prohibited.

It's a list of things the Government is allowed to do, with all else expressly forbidden.

But try tellin that to the Supreme Court... grr

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

GEEZER

Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Different concept, Geeze.

No harm to another person could really come of this morons abject stupidity, so he gets a pass on free speech grounds, in my opinion.

On closer reading of the circumstances, could be. I'm not sure either all Medal of Honor winners or all Marines would agree his remarks were harmless.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE