Podcasts about stolen valor act

The FIRE team debates the proposition: Should there be any categories of unprotected speech? General Counsel Ronnie London and Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere go through each category of speech falling outside First Amendment protection to decide whether it should remain unprotected or if it's time to “remove an arrow from the government's quiver.” Read the transcript. Timestamps:  00:00 Intro 17:59 Obscenity 21:20 Child pornography 25:25 Fighting words 32:36 Defamation 41:22 Incitement to imminent lawless action 52:07 True threats 56:30 False advertising and hate speech 01:02:50 Outro Show notes: -Court cases: Schenck v. United States (1919) Near v. Minnesota Ex Rel. Olson, County Attorney (1931) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) Roth v. United States (1957) Miller v. California (1973) R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota (1992) Counterman v. Colorado (2023) Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) Virginia v. Barry Elton Black, Richard J. Elliot, and Jonathan O'Mara (2003) United States v. Xavier Alvarez (2012) -Legislation: The Comstock Act (1873) The Stolen Valor Act (2005)

Tune in to this Thursday's edition of The Brett Winterble Show! Brett kicks off the show with a discussion about Tim Walz being accused of Stolen Valor. The embattled Democrat vice presidential nominee, Gov. Tim Walz, had voted "Yes" on the federal Stolen Valor Act of 2013 during his time as a U.S. congressman. Brett also provides a brief recap of the latest news and brews. Additionally, Brett will cover a rising concern in car thefts. CMPD Officer Jonathan Frisk joins the conversation to discuss preventive measures, as investigators report a significant increase in stolen vehicles. According to recent data, there were 4,011 vehicle thefts from January 1 to June 30, 2024, compared to 3,731 thefts in the same period of 2023. Beth Troutman from Good Morning BT also makes an appearance on this Thursday's episode of Crossing the Streams. Brett and Beth dive into the political landscape, focusing on the race for the presidency. Beth also gives a sneak peek into what Bo and Beth have planned for Friday's Good Morning BT! Catch all this and more on The Brett Winterble Show!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today's show opens with now ex-Squad member, Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) who was defeated in a democrat primary in her own district. She went on an unhinged rant that shows us just how mentally unwell she really is. We then go to VP Kamala Harris's campaign stop in Detroit, MI, where she is literally using Joe Biden's identical speech. In it, she promises to bring down prices, fight high rents, take on Big Pharma and more. This begs the question, if this is something she can legitimately accomplish, why hasn't she already? Why hasn't Joe? I didn't report on the story that Doug Emhoff, Harris's husband, got divorced after getting the nanny of his child pregnant and then made her get an abortion. This was a “bombshell” story, but I don't see value in those kinds of salacious tales. Unless something happens as a result. It seems the latest news is Kamala, furious at the reveal, may have rushed to pick her running mate in an effort to change the headlines. Is that the rash sort of behavior we want in a Commander-in-Chief? Anti-Israel hecklers were also at the speech. They ruffled Harris's feather enough that she told them that she was speaking. She channeled the voice of the old schoolmarm, talking down to a group of unruly students. Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) isn't shaking the allegation of being in violation of the Stolen Valor Act. The more he tries to ignore it, the more it is being reported. Even CNN raised his prior framing of his military service in war zones as problematic. This might be why we just caught Bloomberg news trying to re-write an article, changing the word “Iraq” to “Italy” in an effort to give Walz cover. Shifting gear, Tulsi Gabbard just confirmed the breaking news story we had earlier in the week about being secretly put on the Harris-Biden regime's domestic terror watch list. Seems if you run afoul of this Authoritarian rulers, it gets you flagged as a problem. Senator JD Vance (R-OH) trolled both VP Kamala Harris and the press beautifully yesterday. Seems Air Force Two was on the same tarmac, so Vance walked over the press and suggested they might be lonely, given the VP has yet to do a single interview with or answer a single question from them. The two astronauts stranded at the Space Station were just told it might not be until February before they might be returned to Earth. Once again, what a perfect metaphor for this Administration. Two ridiculous items of the day: Jessica Tarlov got fact-checked live on TV when she tried to pass the “inject bleach” hoax as true; and, the new judge in the Young Thug trial out of the big Fani Willis DA's office in Fulton County, GA, gave a stern warning to the lead prosecutor. Take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, X, Instagram, GETTR and TRUTH Social by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. You can also support the show by visiting my Patreon page!

In United States v. Alvarez (2012), the Supreme Court was asked whether the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 violated the First Amendment. Listen to audio of the majority opinion now.   Access a pdf copy of the opinion here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/11-210/case.pdf   Access additional resources about the case on oyez.org: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-210   Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts. www.whatscotuswroteus.com

In United States v. Alvarez (2012), the Supreme Court was asked whether the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Listen to audio of the majority opinion now.   Access additional resources about the case on oyez.org: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-210   Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts. www.whatscotuswroteus.com

In this episode, Tyler and Jose sit down with Doug Sterner, a decorated former Army Combat Engineer who served two tours of duty in Vietnam. Doug is the Curator of the "Hall of Valor," the largest and most complete unofficial database of U.S. Military award recipients in the world. Doug is also the most published military historian, with more than 85 books published. In this episode, we also get an opportunity to speak with Pam Sterner, Doug's wife. Pam authored "The Stolen Valor Act," which she and Doug shepherded through Congress, as well as hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court in what became a landmark 2012 First Amendment decision. Their story is documented in Restoring Valor a book authored by Doug and Pam.

Wedding Crashers Welcome to The Guys Review, where we review media, products and experiences.  **READ APPLE REVIEWS/Fan Mail**No emails... remind people about the referral for $100Plug twitter DM group, myself, Tucker, Trey, Justin, Haley, Marcus, Al from produce stand.  Wedding Crashers Directed by: David Dobkin (Also directed Shanghai Knights, RIPD) Starring: Owen WIlson, Vince Vaughn, Christopher Walken, Rachel McAdams, Isla Fisher, Jane Seymour Released July 15, 2005 Budget: $40M ($45.9M in 2021) Box Office: $288.5M ($394.5M 2021), $209.3M domestically, $76M internationally Ratings:   IMDb 6.9/10 Rotten Tomatoes 76%Metacritic 64% Google Users 89% Had 5 nominations for MTV movie awards, Best Movie, which it won, Breakthrough Performance won by Isla Fisher, Best On-Screen Team, which it also won, Best Comedic Performance (both Wilson and Vaughn were nominated), but lost this one to Steve Carell in The 40 Year Old Virgin... I'll give that one. The new york times said, "The financial success of the film has been credited along with The 40-Year-Old Virgin for reviving the popularity of adult-aimed R-rated comedies." -https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/movies/the-return-of-the-rrated-comedy.html Plot:A couple argues and Vaughn and Wilson are obviously tired of it. They are mediating a divorce that is very volatile. They guide the couple to get out there and get some strange ass. They agree to the frequent flier miles and que the intro. Jeremy explains why he stays with John on his birthday because his parents passed away years ago, and explaining why he doesn't like dating. John is called in and they begin discussing the wedding season plans. Starting with fake purple hearts. Cut to the first wedding, a jewish wedding. They don yamakas and start scouting at the wedding. John uses eye drops to make himself look like hes crying, and then Jeremy sets his sights on one of the attendees. At the reception they are shown being heavily involved in the festivities, signing, dancing, **doing up close magic with the kids.** Even making speeches. Jeremy ends a story explaining why he couldn't be a professional bullfighter, and kisses the girl. The guys are shown walking into multiple weddings, again, dancing, people explaining why and how they're related to the couples; making up lies and backstries. John drops a line to a girl, "you know how they say we only use 10% of our brains, I think we only use 10% of our hearts." They're doing the Shout song at multiple weddings and dancing with the women, joking with family, drinking, the women are then shown falling into bed with th them, and spraying champagne everywhere. Vivian calls John on his shit, he and Jeremy were shown sharing a bottle of champagne at the mall in DC, with John questioning what they're doing. John saying they're not that young and the season is over. S:-Following complaints from the United States Congress, the producers of the film yanked from the movie's official website a printable Purple Heart advertised as a gimmick to pick up women and get free drinks. The film was also released at the same time that the Stolen Valor Act became federal law, making the false display of military awards a federal crime.-When Jeremy asks the kids what the little piece of paper is for and the kid says, "rolling a fattie"-There were complaints about the movie being misogynistic, that the guys seduce girls at weddings to have sex with them, the director responded: "They love weddings, authentically. They like the free food, they like the music and the bands, they like the dancing and the kids, they like talking to the grandparents. These guys make the weddings better. You would want them to crash your wedding.That's the distinction. It's not misogynistic and, in fact, what it's doing is replicating a real seduction, which is, "I want to go to bed with you, but I have all these walls up. Can you make me laugh, make me attracted to you and find a way to make this really fun so we could get to the good part?" That's a seduction. So, if I can seduce the audience — if I can make them laugh and be entertained and think these are okay guys — by the time they're dropping the girls in the bed, it's a magic trick. That was the whole idea."  Jeremy comes in Johns office with an article about Secretary Clearys daughter getting married, John was looking forward to a break. but Jeremy convinces him they've got to go by stating the rules of wedding crashing and enthusiasm. Cut to the wedding, John McCain and James Carville are congratulating the Secretary, they run through their pre-game, secretaries back story, etc. John sees Rachel McAdams; and they discuss their back story of being syrup conglomerates. In the wedding, they make small talk about their family connections, and state the rules to each other, Rule 76 play like a champion. Jermey dibs the redhead, and John says he's not going to fight him, as he watches Claire walk down the aisle. They bet on if the bride will cry, and what the sister will read, 1 Corinthians. They read boating related vows, which Claire laughs at. The reception begins. First class all the way, as Jeremy shoves food in his face and John moves towards claire and introduces himself as being psychic with wedding presents. The guys discuss their angles and move on. Jeremy is making balloon animals, and sees Gloria watching him as a demanding kid wants a bicycle. John is dancing with the flower girl, when Mrs. Cleary comes for a very aggressive dance. Gloria comes and and introduces herself and they dance. The song ends and John introduce himself to Secretary Cleary; they discuss economics and politics. Jeremy uses the "lost a lot of really good men out there" line and takes off, with Gloria chasing after him; while John and Sec. Cleary are having a cigar. John explains why people come to weddings and what true love is, "True love is the soul's recognition of its counterpoint in another." and gives her some advice on her speech, which she disagrees with. They cut to the speeches, and Claires goes as John predicted, and he motions to her to speak from the heart, which saves her speech. S:-There is no way they get into the wedding/reception without an invite and being vetted by secret service.-The girl in the hat just eye fucked the shit out of me... Love it.-I love how they commit to the back story and just roll with the weird shit everyone says, the kid with the balloon bike, the wife saying they'll be married for 30 years, and they were faithful for two of them. Jeremy and Gloria are on the beach, obviously having just had sex, when she says she knew her first time would be on a beach, and that she loves him. As Claire thanks John, Sack kisses her and is introduced as her boyfriend. Jermy tells him he's got a stage 5 clinger and they gotta go. She invites them to the family home, and John wants to go, and Jeremy is trying to explain that he can't go. They argue about overtime and tell each other to lock it up. Gloria pitches a fit and the guys are allowed to come with them. They arrive and are invited to play a game of touch football, Sack is obviously over doing the warm up is going to over do it. Sack catches a pass and scores, prompting Kip to say, "crabcakes and football, that's what Maryland does." John and Claire talk before the ball is snapped, they run down as Jeremy throws the ball and Claire intercepts it, as planned, and Sack violently knocks him down. An awkward interaction with Todd, and another play as John throws the ball to Jeremy and is again violently knocked down by Sack. They break up the game, Gloria takes him in , when Mrs. Clearly tells John he should've played in his underwear. Gloria tries to help administer first aid, and goes crazy, and tells hims not to leave because she'd find him. Sec. Cleary tells Jeremy he's a very powerful man, threateningly. Sack is telling a story and John agrees to the eye drops. As the prayer is said, John puts eye drops in Sacks drink. John asks about their relationship, Jeremy complains about his back, as Sec. Cleary asks about their business, Gloria starts grabbing Jeremys crotch and giving him an over the pants handy. John tries to talk about the business, and Jeremy struggles to keep it together. He finishes, and helps name their fake company, Holy Shirts and Pants. Sec. Clearys mom talks about FDRs wife being a "dyke" and Sacks stomach starts rumbling. Jeremy and John engage Tod, which the conversation doesn't go well, with the mom trying to be led off, and Todd declaring to Jeremy he'd be in his room, painting homo things, and storms off. Dinner ends with Claire getting some air and John joining her. S:-I always thought Bradley Coopers characters name was Zach, not Sack... What a shitty name.-What movie do you think of when you hear Bradley Cooper?-I still to this day say lock it up to Abigail when she starts being weird... So all the time.-BOoh of those hits were rough. Feel bad for the stunt guy.-That whole bathroom scene with her going crazy, and the "i'll find you" is so classic.-Remember when the eyedrops thing was a thing?-Ever gotten an over the pants handy at a dinner table? Mrs. Cleary enters the room and exposes her tits to John, and they have an awkward exchange, she tells him to feel her up, and she calls him a pervert when he does. Jeremy tells him to stop crying like a little girl, but wanted to know about them. Did he motorboat her? They built for speed or comfort? He and Claire talk and laugh about her strange family. She checks on Sack, and he's an asshole to her. Jeremy wakes up to being tied to his bed by Gloria, who gags him telling him she'll make all his fantasies come true. John and Claire both aren't sleeping, and sneak to check each others rooms. Back to Jeremy who, still tied to the bed, Todd is now in bed with him. Todd made a painting for him, they hear someone in the hall and Jeremy convinces Todd to hide. Sec. Cleary comes in and they have another awkward conversation about Todd. He convinces Todd to leave and they'd talk tomorrow. At breakfast John wants to stay and Jeremy wants to go. They argue, about why to stay or go. John pulls out Rule 1, never leave a fellow crasher behind. Sack calls his buddy and they expose who big of douches they are, cheating on Claire, and gets his buddy to start digging dirt on John and Jeremy. They go sailing, and John is exposed for NOT knowing anything about sailing. They get back and Sack is ready for the quail hunt, but he seems a little revved up. They walk through the woods talking about how they don't even know what a quail is, and Sack shoots him in the ass. As Gloria pulls out the bb's, John and Claire go for a bike ride and have a bit of a deep conversation about being involved in something longer than they meant to. She rationalizes her relationship and they kiss. At lunch after, as John and Claire eye each other, Sack announces they're getting married. John decides he's going to tell her the truth. Jeremy tells Gloria he doesn't see the relationship going past this weekend, she hits him with some truth about not being as naive as she came off as and spins him out; he realizes he's got feelings for her. As he expresses himself to the priest, and thanks him with a kiss. John tells Claire she can't marry him because he likes her, meanwhile Sack gets a phone call, and there's a gun shot. Jeremy comes running out with the family, Sack tells them all the truth and John admits to it. Gloria seems to forgive Jeremy, Todd tells everyone he tried to seduce him, and he wants his painting back, but Jeremy is keeping it. Sec. Cleary tells them to leave. They're walking down the driveway, back in their tuxes, Jeremy carrying the painting back to DC. S:-When he kinda tried to tell her the truth, you know it's not going to end well.-Isla Fisher used a body double for that scene-The actor who plays Todd actually painted the painting, and Vince Vaughn kept it.-The plate Jeremy fixes himself for breakfast, with syrup on everything... gross.-Props to Gloria... I'm 13 years in a marriage and I don't think I'd be pulling bb's out of my wifes ass.-I've had good talks with guys, but never kissed them.  John is desperate to get to Claire, and Jeremy tries to talk to sence to him and he's not hearing it. John wants to crash the engagement dinner, and reluctantly Jeremy agrees. John infiltrates the party, and while watching Claire dance with her dad, Sack catches him and beats him up. John goes to Jeremys house only to catch him with Gloria. They argue and Jeremy admits he loves Gloria. They part. Video montoge of everyone being sad. Jeremy reaches out, Claire doesn't want to be planning the wedding... John is crashing weddings alone and making a fool of himself. Jeremy and Gloria get engaged. Claire and her dad talk about making decisions. Jeremy and John talk, it's Johns bday again. They start to make up, John is obviously struggling, Jeremy reveals he's getting married and wants him as his best man, and John tells him to leave. John goes to find Chaz. They chat and Chaz tells him he's now crashing funerals... Which John has a hard time to wrap his head around. He ends up going with Chaz to a funeral; when he sees the widow crying, he knows he has to go. He shows up to Jeremy and Glorias wedding. As the celebration resumes, he starts to try and not talk to Claire. She starts to leave, and he tries to explain and apologize to her. He says he's not asking her to marry him, just not to marry Sack. He tells her to get back on the altar, and she tells him she can't marry him. Sack loses his cool and goes after John, but Jeremy steps in and stops him. They kiss to applause, and all four driving away, and Chaz at the wedding with two women. As they drive, asking what's next, the Fujimora wedding coming up, and the girls get involved creating a backstory and fade to black. S:-Jeremy finally mentions there will be secret service at the engagement dinner-This part of the movie really drags the rest of it down.-Will Ferrells over acting just kills it; but the funeral crashing is funny  Wet Hot American Summer next weekend.  Webpage: https://theguysreview.simplecast.com/EM: theguysreviewpod@gmail.comIG: @TheGuysReviewPodTwitter: @The_GuysReviewFB: https://facebook.com/TheGuysReviewPod/

Early this year, a Ninth Circuit panel issued a split decision in an Idaho case that pits interests protected by the First Amendment against property rights and privacy interests. More specifically, as the panel majority noted, the appeal “highlights the tension between journalists’ claimed First Amendment right to engage in undercover investigations and the state’s effort to protect privacy and property rights in the agricultural industry.” In ALDF v. Wasden, 878 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2018), the panel considered constitutional objections to a new Idaho statute that makes it a crime to engage in “interference with agricultural production.” A number of states with substantial agribusiness operations have enacted or considered enacting similar statutes, which some opponents call “ag-gag” laws. The Idaho law was passed in 2014, after an animal rights group posted a “disturbing,” “secretly-filmed exposé of the operation of an Idaho dairy farm” on the Internet. Animal rights organizations filed suit in federal district court, challenging several provisions of the statute. After the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, the Idaho attorney general appealed. As relevant here, the Idaho statute defines the crime of “interference with agricultural production” to include (and thus to prohibit) four categories of knowing conduct: (1) knowingly making misrepresentations to enter an “agricultural production facility”;(2) knowingly making misrepresentations to obtain records of an agricultural production facility;(3) knowingly making misrepresentations to obtain employment with an agricultural production facility, coupled with the intent to cause economic or other injury to the owners, the facility, and other persons and things; and(4) knowingly entering an agricultural production facility that is not open to the public and making audio or video recordings of the facility’s operations without the owner’s consent and without any judicial or statutory authorization. The panel unanimously upheld the second and third prohibitions, and unanimously struck down the fourth prohibition. But the panel divided 2-1 over whether the first prohibition (on knowingly making a misrepresentation to enter an agricultural production facility) is constitutional. The majority (Judge M. Margaret McKeown, joined by Judge Richard C. Tallman) held that the prohibition violates the First Amendment. Judge Carlos T. Bea, who dissented in part and concurred in part, would have upheld the prohibition. Among other things, he disagreed with the majority’s reading of United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S 709 (2012), an important recent case in which the Supreme Court struck down the federal Stolen Valor Act, which criminalized false claims about the receipt of military decorations or medals. Professor Eugene Volokh will discuss and evaluate the separate opinions in the case and their analyses of the statutory provisions at issue, noting possible implications for litigators as well as for legislators who may be considering similar legislative proposals. Featuring:Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawModerator: Andrew R. Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLCTeleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Early this year, a Ninth Circuit panel issued a split decision in an Idaho case that pits interests protected by the First Amendment against property rights and privacy interests. More specifically, as the panel majority noted, the appeal “highlights the tension between journalists’ claimed First Amendment right to engage in undercover investigations and the state’s effort to protect privacy and property rights in the agricultural industry.” In ALDF v. Wasden, 878 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2018), the panel considered constitutional objections to a new Idaho statute that makes it a crime to engage in “interference with agricultural production.” A number of states with substantial agribusiness operations have enacted or considered enacting similar statutes, which some opponents call “ag-gag” laws. The Idaho law was passed in 2014, after an animal rights group posted a “disturbing,” “secretly-filmed exposé of the operation of an Idaho dairy farm” on the Internet. Animal rights organizations filed suit in federal district court, challenging several provisions of the statute. After the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, the Idaho attorney general appealed. As relevant here, the Idaho statute defines the crime of “interference with agricultural production” to include (and thus to prohibit) four categories of knowing conduct: (1) knowingly making misrepresentations to enter an “agricultural production facility”;(2) knowingly making misrepresentations to obtain records of an agricultural production facility;(3) knowingly making misrepresentations to obtain employment with an agricultural production facility, coupled with the intent to cause economic or other injury to the owners, the facility, and other persons and things; and(4) knowingly entering an agricultural production facility that is not open to the public and making audio or video recordings of the facility’s operations without the owner’s consent and without any judicial or statutory authorization. The panel unanimously upheld the second and third prohibitions, and unanimously struck down the fourth prohibition. But the panel divided 2-1 over whether the first prohibition (on knowingly making a misrepresentation to enter an agricultural production facility) is constitutional. The majority (Judge M. Margaret McKeown, joined by Judge Richard C. Tallman) held that the prohibition violates the First Amendment. Judge Carlos T. Bea, who dissented in part and concurred in part, would have upheld the prohibition. Among other things, he disagreed with the majority’s reading of United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S 709 (2012), an important recent case in which the Supreme Court struck down the federal Stolen Valor Act, which criminalized false claims about the receipt of military decorations or medals. Professor Eugene Volokh will discuss and evaluate the separate opinions in the case and their analyses of the statutory provisions at issue, noting possible implications for litigators as well as for legislators who may be considering similar legislative proposals. Featuring:Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawModerator: Andrew R. Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLCTeleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

This week, we speak with George Washington University Law Professor Paul Butler about the Supreme Court's decision on June 25 in Miller v. Alabama eliminating mandatory life without parole for juveniles. We also speak with Paul Larkin, senior legal research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, about the Court's ruling on June 28 in U.S. v. Alvarez that the Stolen Valor Act, which made it a federal crime to lie about having received military decorations or medals, violates the First Amendment. Learn more about NACDL. Denise Tugade, production assistant. Music West Bank (Lezet) / CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 and Walkabout (Digital Primitives) / CC BY-NC-ND 3.0. Running time: 25m 09s.

Can the government put you in prison just for telling a lie? Even if no money is involved? Even if it's just an old war story? What if you claim to be a hero? What if you didn't win that medal? What if you've never even served? Not such an easy question, is it?

It is a truth universally acknowledged--at least by those in certain professions--that everyone lies. Everyone.Doctors know this. “Do you smoke?” they ask. “No,” the patient replies, when she really means, “Only when I’ve been drinking with my girlfriends who smoke, and I bum a smoke, but they only smoke Marlboro Lights.”Piano teachers know this. “Did you practice this week?” they ask. “Yes!” the student replies, when she really means, “For the forty-five minutes before I came to this lesson, and only because my mom made me.”And, of course, lawyers know this. Whether it’s clients, witnesses, opposing counsel, even (gasp) judges, everyone lies. Or omits the truth. Or shades the facts. It’s human nature; there are no Honest Abes.Nonetheless, although most people (whether they want to consciously acknowledge it or not) realize that everyone lies at least some of the time, lying is a crime in our society. So much so, that certain crimes are categorized based on the element of lying they contain.  The Latin term for such crimes is crimen falsi, quite literally, “crimes of deceit.”  Generally speaking, crimen falsi involves forgery or another form of “official” lying, such as perjury.  Moreover, crimen falsi occupies a special place among crimes when it comes to evidentiary rules during a trial.  For example, when a witness is testifying, the lawyer conducting cross examination typically cannot bring up a prior criminal conviction to undermine that witness’s testimony--unless the conviction was for a crimen falsi offense. The rationale? In assessing a witness’s credibility, the judge or jury should know if the witness has “officially” lied before.In today’s society, however--where we acknowledge that everyone lies; where a lie is as ubiquitous as long-expired profile pics on Facebook--can we say with any degree of certainty that one lie inevitably leads to another?  Furthermore, where do we draw the distinctions between “white” lies, morally repugnant lies, and criminal lies?The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently attempted to answer that question in United States v. Alvarez, addressing the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act. In Alvarez, the court tackled the tricky question of what limits the First Amendment places on criminalizing speech, even if that speech is a lie.  It acknowledged that in many circumstances, the government can criminalize falsehoods without running afoul of constitutional protections--in other words, most lies do not merit First Amendment protection. However, the 9th Circuit held in this case that the Act was overly broad--criminalizing a written or spoken lie about military medals, without requiring proof of fraud, injury, or benefit*--and did not survive strict constitutional scrutiny.  This decision has lit up the Internets, with commentators running the gamut from tempered disagreement to vitriolic outrage. Without delving deeper into the constitutional debate, it is worth noting the deep chord this decision has struck on the collective American psyche.  In today’s society, technology creates an illusion of intimacy despite physical separation, requiring a higher degree of trust that others are projecting an authentic version of themselves.  Furthermore, lies can be easily made and spread, but also live forever regardless of the speaker’s intent.  This creates a sort of cognitive dissonance.  We don't want to be lied to, especially about something noble like military awards.  On the other hand, we practitioners of “harmless” puffery might prefer the government not be able to throw us in the clink when such exaggerations come back to haunt us.Alvarez’s fate may ultimately lie with the U.S. Supreme Court, but in the meantime this decision has opened no floodgates; crimen falsi offenses are here to stay, and many types of false speech continue to be unprotected and lawfully criminalized. In other words, even if they both lead to the same result, there’s still a difference between a padded bra and a padded resume.*The Stolen Valor Act reads:“Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both [one year for more prestigious awards like the Medal of Honor].”

In this episode, we rant about  a woman who wants more ridiculous breasts, an animal activist that tried to hire a hitman, inhalable caffeine, man who takes his son to a brothel, dwarf bull fighters, 12 year old girl found naked and eating out of a dumpster, UFO Phil, Man dies during comic book theft, Man charged with dog sodomy, teacher accused of sexing student, Stolen Valor Act, man survives 2 months snowed in his car, 90 year old man fights off robber, couch surfing stunt kills man, man urinates on transformer, meth brings races together, collecge student tried for stealing $2 pumpkin, man makes crazy claim to police, our site of the week, our top 5 Cult CLassic movies, would you rather questions, and more! Subscribe / rate / review us on iTunes!Visit us at:salty-language.tumblr.com / facebook.com/saltylanguage@salty_language / saltylanguage@gmail.comhttp://salty.libsyn.com/webpage  / http://www.youtube.com/user/SaltyLanguagePodOn Stitcher search Salty LanguageShare with your friends! Episode Links: 1. Woman with massive breasts wants bigger ones: http://tinyurl.com/856tbrc2. Animal activist tries to hire hitman: http://tinyurl.com/85g6ydb 3. Inhalable caffeine? http://tinyurl.com/6qwle7o4. Man takes son to brothel to make him a man: http://tinyurl.com/7tdpwpp 5. Dwarf bull fighters paving a path: http://tinyurl.com/7ww63ok6. 12 year old girl found naked and eating out of dumpster: http://tinyurl.com/77gswld 7. UFO Phil, our next President: http://tinyurl.com/8a99yf88. Man dies during comic book theft: http://tinyurl.com/73swxxs 9. Superintendent charged with dog sodomy: http://tinyurl.com/7yvop4610. Teacher accused of sexing up student: http://tinyurl.com/7c8v233 11. Stolen Valor Act: violating 1st Amendment rights? http://tinyurl.com/7kxxvtb12. Man survives 2 months snowed in his car: http://tinyurl.com/76mujmz 13. 90 year old man fights off robber: http://tinyurl.com/8xbz2k714. Couch surfing kills man: http://tinyurl.com/6sjf4aa 15. Man sentenced for urinating on transformer: http://tinyurl.com/6tcjgb516. Meth brings races together: http://tinyurl.com/7a856jb 17. College student tried for stealing $2 pumpkin: http://tinyurl.com/7hr3gl718. Man tells police that he's half orangutan, and Elvis' brother: http://tinyurl.com/767y2xb Salty Shithead of the Week: http://tinyurl.com/7gujmhjSite O' The Week: http://wherethefuckshouldigofordrinks.com/

A case in which the Court found that the Stolen Valor Act violated the First Amendment.