The Geek Forum
Main Forums => Political Opinions => Topic started by: 12AX7 on August 18, 2010, 06:51:26 AM
-
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/ci_15808492
I can't wait to see how this is going to turn out.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has formally ruled that lying is protected free speech.
Ok; what they actually ruled was that the Stolen Valor law was unconstitutional; and that it violated Mr. Alvarez's First Amendment protection.
"The majority said there's no evidence that such lies harm anybody, and there's no compelling reason for the government to ban such lies."
If the First Amendment now covers lies, how are courts going to operate at all? You can't pick and choose; if you rule that a lie is protected; then a lie is protected, right?
How could you then be prosecuted for lying? Perjury, fraud, etc. -I assume- would fall into this category, surely. The basis of those laws are that it's punishable to lie.
What are your thoughts on this? Is it protected free speech to lie? Should it be? If so, why, and how would the legal system work then?
Do you think this could/should be applied sporadically; for example, Mr. Alvarez's lie is protected; but Novice states in court he had no pot; and is charged with perjury in
addition to possession? Who decides which are protected and what criteria should be used?
-
If the First Amendment now covers lies, how are courts going to operate at all? You can't pick and choose; if you rule that a lie is protected; then a lie is protected, right?
Overturned on appeal.
-
YOU LIE!
-
I always figured that lies were protected free speech out of court, but in court after you swore on the bible (or whatever), it was perjury.
-
Should I be imprisoned for lying on my resume? Can a husband be prosecuted for lying where he was last night?
The court overturned the MoH law because "there's no evidence that such lies harm anybody, and there's no compelling reason for the government to ban such lies". Sounds to me like the prosecution presented a weak case. Also sounds to me like this needs to be brought to a higher court.
-
I always figured that lies were protected free speech out of court, but in court after you swore on the bible (or whatever), it was perjury.
In many contexts, lying is a form of fraud and misrepresentation which can very possibly lead to material losses or injury to the victim being defrauded. So no, in no way is lying protected speech.
But yes, knowingly lying under oath in court is perjury.
-
but what about lies that harm noone? and where is the line? surely nobody is proposing that all lies regardless of context be illegal, and of course nobody is proposing that they all be legal, but what is the standard?
-
This was the Ninth Circuit, the laughing stock of the US federal judiciary.
-
I look at lying the same way I look at being naked. If I do it in the privacy of my home, who cares? But when I do it in a courtroom...
-
I look at lying the same way I look at being naked. If I do it in the privacy of my home, who cares? But when I do it in a courtroom...
"Do you, Scheherazade, affirm to put on clothes, the whole clothes, and nothing but clothes, under the pains and penalties of perjury?"
-
This was the Ninth Circuit, the laughing stock of the US federal judiciary.
too true
-
This was the Ninth Circus, the laughing stock of the US federal judiciary.
FTFY
-
Lying, perjury, and fraud are all related but different. So lying being protected free speech doesn't necessarily protect perjury or fraud.
-
Lying, perjury, and fraud are all related but different. So lying being protected free speech doesn't necessarily protect perjury or fraud.
Yeh, after digesting it a bit; I realized that lying is what our courts are FOR. Not to lie in or to; but to bring proof of in a public legal forum. The whole
point of court is to prove / disprove by means of evidence; not by means of word of honor. The courts probably don't really care if you lie; they
are sort of bound to presume everyone is lying. Thus; evidence must be presented.
I was glad to see two threads in here take off and still be serious discussions without degenerating into shit flinging; I perhaps was trying to hard to
get another one going and didn't mull it over as thoroughly as I should have.
-
I was glad to see two threads in here take off and still be serious discussions without degenerating into shit flinging; I perhaps was trying to hard to get another one going and didn't mull it over as thoroughly as I should have.
Oh you'd like that wouldn't you!? LIAR! OBAMA IS A NAZI!
-
Oh you'd like that wouldn't you!? LIAR!
no u !
OBAMA IS A NAZI!
I NOE!!!
-
This thread is rapidly leaving "serious discussion" and approaching "serious clusterfuck."
-
fustercluck
-
Custerfluck makes Native Americans cry.
-
Speaking of First Amendment...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-18/-dr-laura-to-end-30-years-on-u-s-radio-after-using-racial-slurs-on-air.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-18/-dr-laura-to-end-30-years-on-u-s-radio-after-using-racial-slurs-on-air.html)
The mistake here is that people think First Amendment means you're free to spew whatever garbage you can without consequences.
-
Probably a violation of her contract. Sure she can say it, but it doesn't guarantee her a job. Well she could always go to work for Fox News....
-
If the First Amendment now covers lies, how are courts going to operate at all?
That's easy. They'll say this ruling was actually a lie.