Stolen Valor - Reachesd Supreme Court

[anomaly]

Now, if you disagree that there is such an interest, I don't have a problem with that. We can agree to disagree on that point. But I cannot agree that all speech, regardless of any harm, is protected any more than I would agree that no restrictions on firearms possession - even by a person with a demonstrated disability or conviction to do harm - is reasonable.

Right, I didn't mean to imply that I am part of the absolutist crowd.

However -- I'm not entirely convinced on your "harm" notion:

In that case, Congress will have the opportunity to codify the interest that Rep. Salazar spoke of when he stated that "the price of the myth [of fraudulent claims] has been enormous for society [and] has severely denigrated the service, patriotism, and gallantry of the best warriors America's ever produced." Or, they can codify the specific harms that Rep. Sensenbrenner pointed out with the examples of “a 10-year marine sergeant who secured $66 million in security contracts from the military based upon fictitious combat experience [and the fact that the] FBI estimates that for every legitimate Navy SEAL team member, there are roughly 300 impostors.”

Did you try to enumerate possible "harms" anywhere else? If so, I couldn't find it.

I looked up the definition of "harm" and found "A comprehensive term for any wrong or harm done by one individual to another individual's body, rights, reputation, or property. Any interference with an individual's legally protected interest."

If we look at "clear and present danger" style speech, it's clear we are typically trying to protect one or more individual's body from imminent harm. With slander, their reputation and/or money. IMO, in the cases where a restriction on free speech has been upheld, it's because there is a pretty straightforward manner in which some other individual is harmed or very likely to be harmed. Furthermore, it also seems that such harm is pretty easy to quantify -- e.g., "person X could have been trampled", "person Y lost Z$ without compensation", "the public now believes person J to be a pervert".

However, does wearing a fake MoH really harm the individual service members in any way? Can we really quantify a loss with respect to the denigration of service/patriotism/gallantry? Sounds like a bunch of handwaving to me IMO. Even the 10-year marine sergeant who secured $66 million in security contracts based upon fictitious combat experience seems sketchy to me -- did he get all 66 million at once, or did he in fact perform adequately enough to receive multiple contracts? His lies about his experience would be only an element of his qualification for such a job/contract, not the entire thing. And even so, I'd say buyer beware. I don't have the impression he took the $66 million and walked with it (which would be fraud), but rather was paid 66 million and did a job.

That's not to say lying never gets punished -- see the definition of fraud "A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury."

If the party paying these contracts was in fact /injured or damaged/ by the lie, then fraud can apply.

However, it is an entirely different notion to attack a lie without a clear and convincing harm made upon a real person or persons -- I think this opens the door to the government being able to attack/legislate against much more speech than we might expect, in the name of silencing liars. As we all well know from 2A cases, the mere capability of the government to file a suit against a private individual often results in significant (yet legally unrecognized) damage to that individual, and I certainly don't want the government to have more reason to do so.

[Mrs. Daspirate]

Mrs. Daspirate,

Article 1, Section 8 requires the establishment of copyright, patent, and similar laws. It does not matter whether you register your work or not, the protection of your work comes from the copyright laws established by the Government. Without those laws, anybody could copy your work without any penalty. Please don't get me started on the inequity of the laws written to comply to that requirement, because it is another complete thread, and I am not sure if it would violate the TOS.

Other than that I agree with you, but I can not think of a case where speech would cause an immediate harm to another. I don't think the hot air can do that much damage.

Copyright laws, to my understanding, are to punish the theft, where it might have an impact on the individual who actually wrote/painted/drew/designed the thing in question, not to validate the work. It's a distinct difference, in my eyes. The government punishes copyright infringement, regardless of whether you applied to have them recognize it, because it is theft.
The reason I wanted to be clear in my understanding is because it's being used as another example where the government interferes with free speech. They are only interfering with the theft of the speech, particularly in those cases where the theft has de-valued the work or otherwise directly impacted the original owner - they are preventing a specific harm (in theory, at least!) They are NOT in the process of validating what one says or writes - which is the point I think has direct impact for this case. It's a little like saying I was born, regardless of whether I have a government issued birth certificate - I don't depend on the government validating my birth to gain my rights, it's just a government paper trail for me to make it easier to enforce my rights - again, in theory, at least....

[Tourist]

Mrs. Daspirate,

In general I agree with you, however, the copyright law is what makes the theft a crime. Without the law there would be no protection.

In the light of prior restraint, I totally agree that the copyright laws in no way stop free speech. They just stop you from copying somebody else's free speech!