+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/22/2018 02:01 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  4.476 Visits   5 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
01/17/2008 11:53 AM ID: 67716 Permalink   

Man States First Amendment Allows Him to Falsely Claim to have Won Medal of Honor


California: After being charged under the Stolen Valor Act for falsely claiming to have won the the Congressional Medal of Honor Xavier Alvarez has filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional.

His lawyer said that the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a misdemeanor to falsely claiming military honours, violates the First Amendment and that "protecting the reputation of military decorations" does not warrant a restriction on free speech.

The prosecution has responded by claiming that deliberate falsehoods are not free speech protected by the First Amendment. Alvarez has never actually served in the armed forces.

    WebReporter: ixuzus Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
...go figure. I grew up there so I have the legal right to bash 'em.

Heck, make him go earn it.
  by: crosimoto     01/17/2008 12:17 PM     
  Have to agree with him.  
I understand the reason behind the law but it does violate the 1st amendment. Just as the Flag Laws were shown to be unconstitutional on 1st amendment grounds this will be shown for the same reasons.
  by: qwerty017   01/17/2008 01:53 PM     
  @Summary and Article  
The article requires registration to access via that link also is the last section of the summary correct? Or should the prosecution be claiming that deliberate falsehoods are not protected by the first amendment?
  by: gtg833b     01/17/2008 02:13 PM     
  To access article  
  by: qwerty017   01/17/2008 02:29 PM     
  @summary and qwerty  
Thanks for the link qwerty, also after reading the source, the last section of the summary is wrong, it states the oposite of what actually happened.
  by: gtg833b     01/17/2008 02:36 PM     
What a difference that little word 'not' makes. The source has been changed so can someone confirm the new one works without registration? I hate these sources that require rego for some people and not for others.
  by: ixuzus     01/17/2008 02:44 PM     
The link works for me.
  by: StarShadow     01/17/2008 03:41 PM     
  His claim is voided by many other laws  
Its illegal to lie under oath, or to commit fraud with a lie, and theres plain old perjury, which is a royal pain to prove, except in cases like this.
  by: brinlong     01/17/2008 07:21 PM     
He's not being charged with perjury (lying under oath) or fraud. He lied to make himself sound better. Even though he seems to be ethically-challenged, I have to agree that he has point. If he had lied to get a perk of some kind, or to assert/claim some kind of authority, it'd be a much harder call though I'd expect it to go against him.

As for the prosecutor, I think he needs to pull his head out of his backside.

The relevent part of the First Amendment says:

".. or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;.."


".. or abridging the freedom of truthful speech, or of the press;.."
  by: StarShadow     01/17/2008 07:46 PM     
But if perjury isnt protected speech, because the perjury law says so, surely the same applies here?
  by: AnsweringQuestions     01/18/2008 04:33 PM     
Perjury is strictly defined as lying under oath.
  by: StarShadow     01/18/2008 06:50 PM     
Xavier Alvarez belongs in the "Stupid Hall Of Fame." What an idiot.
  by: Lurker     01/18/2008 07:06 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: