Occasionally, I'll digress from the usual eclectic fare of this blog to share some interesting cases from around the country. I posted earlier about the Stolen Valor Act case arising from California. The case involved a man asserting his receipt of the Medal of Honor. Per the Ninth Circuit: Apparently, Alvarez makes a hobby of lying about himself to make people think he is "a psycho from the mental ward with Rambo stories." The summer before his election to the water district board, a woman informed the FBI about Alvarez's propensity for making false claims about his military past. Alvarez told her that he won the Medal of Honor for rescuing the American Ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis, and that he had been shot in the back as he returned to the embassy to save the American flag. Alvarez reportedly told another woman that he was a Vietnam veteran helicopter pilot who had been shot down but then, with the help of his buddies, was able to get the chopper back into the sky. The Ninth Circuit reversed the conviction, here . As predicted, the United States just petitioned for Supreme Court review (petition here). The Question Presented is: Section 704(B) of Title 18, United States Code, makes it a crime when anyone "falsely represents himself or herself, *** verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoaration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States." The Question Presented is Whether 18 U.S.C. 704(B) is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Stay tuned.
Read more detail on Recent Admiralty Law Posts –
Geniale Seite – enorm wissenswert – hab den mir nichts, dir nichts einmal als Bookmark gespeichert. Ich bin exakt dergleichen Auffassung wie du in deinem Beitrag schreibst.
, the next step should be a lobnyibg effort of the state legislation to fix this broken law. I hate to come down on the side of the ACLU(I disagree with their position, I think the fact that it was a parent violating their child’s privacy is central to the case and they should never have taken this case) but the law doesn’t have anything about it in there, so what are you gonna do? Better to not have judges legislating from the bench, even if that would make the decision more just in our minds. That’s only my opinion, and I still agree that a mother has broad rights over her child’s privacy, and whatever she finds out ought to be court admissible. Just imagine if she’d overheard her daughter talking about shooting up the school? Or more specific to this case, what if her boyfriend had been talking about it? This law needs to be changed, big time. Thanks for leaving the comments open so I could ramble 😀 Cheers,M@