Two Things I Will Remember GH Bush for: 1) his Eternal Hoax on the Public and 2) how he conceals it

[anobserver2]

92. Maybe it is considered "free speech" by the CIA

This is a really interesting article, quoting various Supreme Court justices when the Stolen Valor Act was being considered:

Law - Is A Lie Just Free Speech, Or Is It A Crime?
Listen· 5:465:46

Download
Transcript

February 22, 20126:56 PM ET
Heard on All Things Considered
Nina Totenberg

https://www.npr.org/2012/02/22/147257716/is-a-lie-just-free-speech-or-is-it-a-crime

---------

My own take on this is as follows: Prior to (and immediately after) the Stolen Valor Act, it was considered "free speech" to go around and claim you have a military medal when in fact you do not, as I understand it. From the above article:

"At the center of the case is Xavier Alvarez, a former California county water board member who is an undisputed liar. Among his lies is that he played professional hockey, served in the Marines and rescued the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis. None of those lies was illegal.

But when he claimed to have won the "Congressional Medal of Honor," that lie was a violation of the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to make false claims about receiving military medals.

Alvarez appealed his conviction and won. A federal appeals court struck down the law as a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

The government appealed to the Supreme Court, where Solicitor General Donald Verrilli on Wednesday told the justices that the law regulates only a narrowly drawn category of calculated falsehoods, and that the "pinpointed" pure lies targeted by the statute are not speech protected by the First Amendment."

So, to put it simply, it seems to me: If there was no Stolen Valor Act law (enacted under GW Bush, I believe), it would still be considered "free speech" to go around claiming you won a military medal - even though you did not.

Well, there is no such thing as the "Stolen Scholar Act."

So, apparently, it would be OK to go around in public claiming you have college degrees - even though you do not.

Indeed, look at what one Supreme Court justice said in the article:

Still, Chief Justice John Roberts wondered, "Where do you stop?"

Could Congress make it a crime for a person to falsely claim that he graduated from high school?

Verrilli conceded that Congress, or more likely state governments, could make it a crime to lie about having graduated from high school.

To sum up - Congress has NOT made it a crime to falsely claim that one has graduated from high school - or, I will add, college.

Therefore, if GH Bush or anyone else wants to go before the Senate to be confirmed as CIA Director -- a job which does not require any formal education as I understand it -- and wants to claim he got a Doctorate degree in ten minutes, right now that is considered free speech. It is not violating any "Stolen Scholar" law because there is no such law. What one is doing is exercising free speech.

Taking it one step further - it was only when the military vets became so outraged that others were falsely claiming to have earned military medals that the Stolen Valor Act came into being. So, likewise, scholars would have to become outraged that politicians lie and claim degrees they did not earn, thus requiring a "Stolen Scholar Act."

But until that happens, it appears lies in the public sector about educational credentials are considered to be free speech. Politicians are allowed, nationally, to lie, about such matters as education credentials.

Instead of more transparency in elections (Which I'm now guessing will never happen on this issue), maybe voters need more educating, to understand:

what a politician says is considered free speech. There is no such thing as the "Stolen Scholar Act" so you the voter have to evaluate the media's reported claims about politicians. If a politician claims he got a 4 year undergraduate degree in only 2-1/2 years and you read that in the newspaper, it doesn't mean the reporter went and fact checked it; it means the politician has the right to lie because the politician has the right to free speech.

And, you the voter have the right to choose to believe it or not believe it. ( But there's no violation of law because: There is no such thing as the "Stolen Scholar Act." )

Maybe it is thus considered free speech by the Senate and CIA.

But still - the private sector functions very differently than the public sector. When one comes from the private sector, works hard in school to earn degrees, then one is deeply offended that public officials lie about having degrees. Yet -- in the public sphere of speech:

"Justice Elena Kagan noted that quite a few states have laws on the books that make it a crime for political candidates to lie during a political campaign. But Verrilli said those laws too would likely be unconstitutional because they would risk chilling speech

."

So, when it comes to education credentials, it's all free speech if a politician lies.

Good to know.