Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Dec 30, 2016 at 5:53 vote accept Daniel
Nov 15, 2016 at 22:33 comment added ohwilleke @Pat W. Fair point, although not very relevant to the larger issue.
Nov 15, 2016 at 20:50 comment added Pat W. Also, although probably beside your point, Congress passed a new version of the Stolen Valor Act in 2013 after the Alvarez case.
Nov 15, 2016 at 20:40 comment added ohwilleke REDOThe stolen valor case is U.S. v. Alvarez 132 S.Ct. 2537 (2012); a law review note (i.e. student written article) on it explores the issue. minnesotalawreview.org/articles/… Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982) applied the NYT actual malice standard to political speech. Alvarez broadened that exception even to cases of actual malice. Accord Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 898–99 (2010) (“[P]olitical speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.”).
Nov 15, 2016 at 6:12 comment added ohwilleke Many state laws on the books prohibit this kind of speech, but those laws are probably unconstitutional.
Nov 15, 2016 at 6:11 comment added ohwilleke The Defense of Valor Act, which made it a crime to misrepresent having received military honors or rank, was held unconstitutional despite the fact that it criminalized a knowing false statement of fact. While false statements can be punished in some circumstances, in political contexts this is generally not the case (so that judges aren't put in the deciding the truth of a controversial question). There must be a particularized harm to the victim of the falsehood for it to be actionable (arguably really a strict reading of standing law informed by constitutional avoidance).
Nov 14, 2016 at 19:50 history edited Pat W. CC BY-SA 3.0
edited body
Nov 14, 2016 at 16:44 history edited Pat W. CC BY-SA 3.0
added 249 characters in body
Nov 14, 2016 at 16:38 history answered Pat W. CC BY-SA 3.0