Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Alvarez , 567 U.S. 709 (2012), is a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was unconstitutional. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was a federal law that criminalized false statements about having a military medal.
Struck down by United States v. Alvarez in a 6–3 decision on June 28, 2012 The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 , signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 20, 2006, [ 1 ] was a U.S. law that broadened the provisions of previous U.S. law addressing the unauthorized wear, manufacture, or sale of any military decorations and medals .
The Stolen Valor Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113–12 (text); H.R. 258) is a United States federal law that was passed by the 113th United States Congress.The law amends the federal criminal code to make it a crime for a person to fraudulently claim having received a valor award specified in the Act, with the intention of obtaining money, property, or other tangible benefit by convincing another that ...
Prosecutors say Alvarez owned and ran the Bronx-based company ATAX New York, which they described as a “high-volume tax preparation company.” The company prepared about 90,000 federal income ...
The legal rule itself – how to apply this exception – is complicated, as it is often dependent on who said the statement and which actor it was directed towards. [6] The analysis is thus different if the government or a public figure is the target of the false statement (where the speech may get more protection) than a private individual who is being attacked over a matter of their private ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Help; Learn to edit; Community portal; Recent changes; Upload file
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in the initial case ([6]) that the FCC cannot punish broadcast stations for such incidents. [7] The FCC appealed to the Supreme Court, [8] and in the 2009 case, the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit, [9] finding that the new policy was not arbitrary. However, the issue of ...
The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was passed by Congress in 2000. CIPA was Congress's third attempt to regulate obscenity on the Internet, but the first two (the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the Child Online Protection Act of 1998) were struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional free speech restrictions, largely due to vagueness and overbreadth issues that ...