First Amendment violation?

POSTED BY: fredgiblet
UPDATED: Saturday, January 19, 2008 03:24
VIEWED: 5722
PAGE 3 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

KIRKULES

Friday, January 18, 2008 2:37 AM

I think it's pretty clear this idiot's claim to be a war hero is protected speech. Seems if someone could prove real damages they might have a civil case against him at best. The public shame that results from outing a piece of crap like this guy is the best punishment.

I know I'm right in this case because I asked my wife Morgan Fairchild.

GEEZER

Friday, January 18, 2008 2:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I think it's pretty clear this idiot's claim to be a war hero is protected speech. Seems if someone could prove real damages they might have a civil case against him at best. The public shame that results from outing a piece of crap like this guy is the best punishment.

I know I'm right in this case because I asked my wife Morgan Fairchild.

Crap! You mean my Morgan's a bigimist?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

HERO

Friday, January 18, 2008 2:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I think it's pretty clear this idiot's claim to be a war hero is protected speech.

At first glance you are correct, however the Supreme Court has been very consistant in saying that there is no 'right to lie'. This first case would seem to support your argument:

"Thus, the First Amendment "ordinarily" denies a State the power to prohibit dissemination of social, economic and political doctrine which a vast majority of its citizens believes to be false and fraught with evil consequence." Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 374 (1927) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

But:

"The protections afforded by the First Amendment, however, are not absolute, and we have long recognized that the government may regulate certain categories of expression consistent with the Constitution." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-572 (1942) ("There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem").

And in conclusion as to the issue of fraud in general and this lie in particular:

"Calculated falsehood falls into that class of utterances which are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. . . ." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572.

and:

"Hence the knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection." Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75 (1964). [472 U.S. 488]

That about ends the discussion...questions?

H

KWICKO

Friday, January 18, 2008 2:32 PM

If I understand correctly (and I probably don't in this instance, since I didn't read the entire article), this guy's basically a civil servant, right? As such, his application would have been given some preferential treatment because of his service record (as in, if you apply at the IRS, you get extra points for being a veteran, and so on). If that's the case, there are indeed REAL damages that have been done to the people. This guy perpetrated a fraud in order to bilk the electorate out of money, and in order to put that money in his own pocket. Anyone thought of that angle yet?

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 18, 2008 5:29 PM

So basically the Supreme Court can re-interpret the Constitution any way they like, to say whatever they like, to mean whatever they like, eh ?

Kinda invalidates the whole damn document, doesn't it ?

And this was predicted, in explicit detail, by BRUTUS, in AntiFederalist Papers 11, 12 & 15.

http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus11.htm
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus12.htm#01
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm

In essence, what is to stop them from re-interpreting ANY word or phrase of the Constitution to mean the exact opposite of it's intention - a document written quite deliberately in (intended) iron-clad terms to prevent it ?

Why, nothing - no proper check and balance upon them exists, and that this would lead to misery, was bloody obvious from the beginning.

Our current situation is eerily ominous when contrasted in light of THIS statement from AntiFederalist Paper #1, isn't it ?
http://www.constitution.org/afp/centin01.htm

Quote:
From this investigation into the organization of this government, it appears that it is devoid of all responsibility or accountability to the great body of the people, and that so far from being a regular balanced government, it would be in practice a permanent ARISTOCRACY.

Which, it has.

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

RAZZA

Friday, January 18, 2008 6:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
In essence, what is to stop them from re-interpreting ANY word or phrase of the Constitution to mean the exact opposite of it's intention - a document written quite deliberately in (intended) iron-clad terms to prevent it ?

Why, nothing - no proper check and balance upon them exists, and that this would lead to misery, was bloody obvious from the beginning...

Not quite Frem. I point you to the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 2:

Quote:
...The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

To say there is nothing anyone could do to a justice(s), who declared themselves "Judicial Monarchs with supreme power over the land" through an interpretation of the federal highway bill is a bit of a stretch. The fact is that they could not enforce such an interpretation if they were foolish enough to make it. I doubt the House of Representatives would sit idly by while the Supreme Court went amok with ridiculous interpretations that were the exact opposite of the Congress' intentions either. Impeachment is just one method the Congress could use to reign in Judicial overstepping.

-----------------
Yet Another Stupid Blog --> www.razzarant.net

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

HERO

Friday, January 18, 2008 8:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
To say there is nothing anyone could do to a justice(s), who declared themselves "Judicial Monarchs with supreme power over the land" through an interpretation of the federal highway bill is a bit of a stretch. The fact is that they could not enforce such an interpretation if they were foolish enough to make it. I doubt the House of Representatives would sit idly by while the Supreme Court went amok with ridiculous interpretations that were the exact opposite of the Congress' intentions either. Impeachment is just one method the Congress could use to reign in Judicial overstepping.

Impeachment is one option.

Another is the President could refuse to enforce a ruling as President Jackson did over the indian issue in Georgia.

President Roosevelt (Franklin) was frustrated by the Court declaring 5-4 that the New Deal unconstitutional and decided to fix the problem by increasing the number of justices from 9 to 12 (allowing him to pack the Court with three new appointees). That led to the famous 'switch in time to save nine' where the 5-4 split one way became a 5-4 split the other.

Justices have been impeached over political disagreements with ruling...including Justice Samuel Chase, from the Marshall Court, who was impeached during the Federalist-Republican power struggle.

Simply put, the Constitution says what 9 folks in black say it does. Those nine folks are chosen in such a way that it makes an abuse of their power extremely difficult and rare. Supreme Court decisions are not simply bland proclamations of policy. They are set forth in legal reasoning that are readily available more review by both the public, the other branches, and by legal scholars. If a decision is bad or poorly reasoned it is readily apparent and subject to attack (exp...Brown v. Board of Education which overturned a bad ruling that supported segregation). But even the most politically controversal and divisive decisions can withstand scrutiny if based on sound legal reasoning (exp...Roe v. Wade, which says the state can outlaw abortions...when the fetus becomes viable, not before).

Just because you don't like a decision does not mean the whole Court is run mad with power. But if your going to start your rebellion, I'd suggest you pick a better issue then defending this fella's God given right to lie about having defended the country.

You wont find many folks willing to fight for his cause...although you might find a few willing to lie about having fought for his cause.

H

SIGNYM

Friday, January 18, 2008 8:18 PM

FredG- If this is still an issue with your grandfolks-

Quote:
Funny thing, not too long ago my grandparents neighbors filed a claim of some sort (forget the name) basically stating that they owned about a quarter to half an acre of land that belonged to my grandparents, not that the property lines were incorrect, but rather that they were simply claiming the land. There's some rule on the books that you can claim abandoned land and if the owners of the land don't respond then its yours, but the whole thing has a very Hitchhikers Guide feel to it since there's apparently no mechanism to attempt to check if the land is actually abandoned.-FredG

Its called Adverse Possession and generally only applies to real property (ie Real Estate). You claim it by action...like mowing or farming or improving. If the owner does not respond in some fashion (including simply giving you written permission to mow or whatever) then its yours. Its a common law notion and the rule is generally seven years. Check your local laws though, the times and manner vary and in most cases you can't adverse possess govt property.-Hero

In CA there have been several rulings against this kind of possession based on who paid the property tax? That puts ownerhsip clearly with the name in the County Registrar's Office, and would prolly make a good defense against your neighbor trying to acquire your grandparents' property.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREDGIBLET

Friday, January 18, 2008 8:56 PM

Thanks but I think it's been resolved. I wasn't involved in it (except for an offer of giving the assholes in question an offer they couldn't refuse) but I'm pretty sure that once my grandparents found out what was going on things got straightened out pretty fast.

KIRKULES

Friday, January 18, 2008 10:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I think it's pretty clear this idiot's claim to be a war hero is protected speech.

At first glance you are correct, however the Supreme Court has been very consistant in saying that there is no 'right to lie'.

"Calculated falsehood falls into that class of utterances which are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. . . ." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572.

Chaplinsky case dealt with language that is "lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace". In the phony hero case the language used was not offensive at the time it was used. It only became offensive when people later learn it was untrue.

Quote:

"Hence the knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection." Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75 (1964). [472 U.S. 488]

That about ends the discussion...questions?

H

The Garrison case seems to deal with actual Libel. Libelous speech is not protected, but they would have to prove "actual malice". This seem like it would be difficult to do in this case because the guy was just trying to inflate himself in others eyes, not denigrate others.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE