9th Circuit Court of Appeals Allows Stolen Valor?

So once again our Judges didn't read their law books when making a ruling. The idea that you can get ticketed or arrested for swearing in the street at night but not for slapping everyone that has respect for or donned a uniform is absurd.

Yeah, so I got the law books out last night... 1600 pages on constitutional law, and I definitely didn't read all of it, but... there are pretty interesting things limiting speech such as that which serves as fighting words.

I know I have been on the free speech bandwagon for a while, but reading deeper into some of the protections we have put in place has enlightened me a bit.

I would posit that Stolen Valor falls under the same category as “Fighting Words” and that this in and of itself is a violation of public peace, as well as should be expected to have retaliation. The ruling on this was by a generation far more knowledgeable than this one, with far greater wisdom than those riding the bench. I see the hypocrisy that this expression of fighting words (stolen valor) be viewed as free speech. Stolen valor should be upheld, and while I do not advocate violence against those that perform stolen valor, I do believe the repercussions of those that take action against them and sometimes get carried away should be highly mitigated to the minimum punishment if not at all. I believe the below excerpt should help explain why stolen valor needs to be upheld and retaliation punishments minimized unless grossly excessive.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942)
“There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise and Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words-those which by their very utterance inflict injure or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Such utterances 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.”
It goes on to further say, “The word ‘offensive’ is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be likely to cause an average addressee to fight. The English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent are ‘fighting words’.”


http://taskandpurpose.com/a-judges-panel-just-ruled-stolen-valor-as-free-speech/