text:
Johann Christoph Sticht (* um 1705 in Selb; † 12. Januar 1772 in Altona) war ein deutscher Pädagoge, Orientalist und evangelischer Theologe.

Leben
Johann Christoph Sticht, Sohn eines Schuhmachers, hatte die Schule seines Geburtsorts besucht und am Lyzeum in Wunsiedel sowie am Gymnasium in Gera seine Ausbildung fortgesetzt. Seine akademische Laufbahn begann Sticht an der Universität Jena, wo er neben der Theologie besonders ein Studium der orientalischen Sprachen absolvierte. Unter dem Vorsitz von Johann Leonhard Reckenberger (1702–1773), der seine Vorliebe für die morgenländische Literatur geweckt hatte, verteidigte Sticht 1727 seine Abhandlung de urbe Hanochia ad genuinum Capitis 4, 17. Geneseos sensum investigandum.

Zurückgekehrt in seine Heimat wurde er Lehrer und bekam auf Empfehlung von Johann Adam Flessa (1694–1775) 1741 eine Professur der orientalischen Sprachen am Christianeum, dem Gymnasium in Altona. Diese Stelle trat er mit einer lateinischen Rede über die Nachteile, welche die Vernachlässigung des Sprachstudiums im Mittelalter für die Wissenschaften gehabt habe, an. Das Subkonrektorat am Pädagogium in Altona legte er nieder, als er am dortigen Gymnasium eine Professur der Theologie erhalten hatte. Als diese Stelle 1771 abgeschafft wurde, bekam er eine Pension, starb aber bereits im Folgejahr.

Seine orientalischen Sprachkenntnisse benutzte Sticht besonders für die Exegese und Kritik des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Seine lateinischen Dissertationen und Programme waren nicht unumstritten.

Werke
 Diss. de urbe Hanochia, ad genuinum Capitis 4. 17. Geneseos sensum investigandum. Jena 1727
 Epistola gratul. de provida in commentatione matheseos methodique mathematicae cura. Bayreuth 1741
 Progr. adit. de genuino philologiae in sacris studiis usu. Altona 1741
 Progr. de ritibus veterum in celebrandis summorum principum diebus natalitis. Altona 1742
 Progr. de scholis publicis privatae institutioni praeferendis. Altona 1743
 Progr. de odio Judaeorum, quo philosophiam graecam prosecuti sunt. Altona 1745
 Progr. de viris principibus, Scripturae Sacrae et linguarum cognitione claris. Altona 1749
 Progr. super Genes. Cap. 1, 31. Altona 1751
 Diss. super dictis Genes. 6, 6. Luc. 2, 12. itemque de fide in Christum. Altona 1757
 Diss. de praeceptis minimis ex mente Pharisaeorum, ad il lustrandum Matth. 5, 19. Altona 1755
 Diss. de Keri et Ketibh. Altona 1760
 Diss. de Oeconomo, cujus Lucas meminit Cap. 16, 1 - 9. viro probo. Altona 1762
 Diss, de linguis ignitis sive caste atque expedite peregrinos sermones loquentibus, ad illust. Actor. 2. 3. Altona 1764
 Progr. de Psalmis Hammualoth. Altona 1766
 Diss. de colloquio Dei cum Caino ob sacrificium suum contemtim habitum, gravius irascente ad illustrationem Genes. 4, 7. Altona 1766
 Progr. de colloquio Dei cum Satana habito de deprobitate Hiobi Cap. 1, 5- 11. Altona 1767

Literatur

 Heinrich Doering: Die gelehrten Theologen Deutschlands im achtzehnten und neunzehnten Jahrhundert. Verlag Johann Karl Gottfried Wagner, 1835, Neustadt an der Orla, Bd. 4, S. 375, (Online)
 Johann Georg Meusel: Lexikon der vom Jahr 1750 bis 1800 verstorbenen teutschen Schriftsteller. Gerhard Fleischer d. J., Leipzig 1813, Bd. 13, S. 383 (Online)

Lutherischer Theologe (18. Jahrhundert)
Pädagoge (18. Jahrhundert)
Orientalist
Christianeum
Person (Altona)
Deutscher
Geboren im 18. Jahrhundert
Gestorben 1772
Mann

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
<!DOCTYPE HTML>

<title>OVRSessionStatus (LWJGL 3.1.0 - LibOVR)</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="dc.created" content="2016-10-30">
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../../../javadoc.css" title="Style">
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../../../jquery/jquery-ui.css" title="Style">

JavaScript is disabled on your browser.

Skip navigation links

Package

Class

Deprecated

Index

Prev Class

Next Class

Frames

No Frames

All Classes

SEARCH:
<input type="text" id="search" value=" " disabled="disabled">
<input type="reset" id="reset" value=" " disabled="disabled">

JavaScript is disabled on your browser.

Summary:

Nested |

Field |

Constr |

Method

Detail:

Field |

Constr |

Method

Package org.lwjgl.ovr

Class OVRSessionStatus

java.lang.Object

org.lwjgl.system.Pointer.Default

org.lwjgl.system.Struct

org.lwjgl.ovr.OVRSessionStatus

All Implemented Interfaces:

java.lang.AutoCloseable, org.lwjgl.system.NativeResource, org.lwjgl.system.Pointer

public class OVRSessionStatus
extends org.lwjgl.system.Struct
implements org.lwjgl.system.NativeResource

Specifies status information for the current session.

Member documentation

IsVisible – True if the process has VR focus and thus is visible in the HMD.

HmdPresent – True if an HMD is present.

HmdMounted – True if the HMD is on the user's head.

DisplayLost – True if the session is in a display-lost state. See OVR.ovr_SubmitFrame(long, long, org.lwjgl.ovr.OVRViewScaleDesc, org.lwjgl.PointerBuffer).

ShouldQuit – True if the application should initiate shutdown.

ShouldRecenter – True if UX has requested re-centering. Must call OVR.ovr_ClearShouldRecenterFlag(long) or OVR.ovr_RecenterTrackingOrigin(long).

Layout

struct ovrSessionStatus {
    ovrBool IsVisible;
    ovrBool HmdPresent;
    ovrBool HmdMounted;
    ovrBool DisplayLost;
    ovrBool ShouldQuit;
    ovrBool ShouldRecenter;
}

Nested Class Summary

Nested Classes

Modifier and Type
Class and Description

static class
OVRSessionStatus.Buffer

An array of OVRSessionStatus structs.

Nested classes/interfaces inherited from interface org.lwjgl.system.Pointer

org.lwjgl.system.Pointer.Default

Field Summary

Fields

Modifier and Type
Field and Description

static int
SIZEOF

The struct size in bytes.

Fields inherited from interface org.lwjgl.system.Pointer

POINTER_SHIFT, POINTER_SIZE

Constructor Summary

Constructors

Constructor and Description

OVRSessionStatus(java.nio.ByteBuffer container)

Creates a OVRSessionStatus instance at the current position of the specified ByteBuffer container.

Method Summary

All Methods Static Methods Instance Methods Concrete Methods

Modifier and Type
Method and Description

static OVRSessionStatus
calloc()

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus instance allocated with memCalloc.

static OVRSessionStatus.Buffer
calloc(int capacity)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus.Buffer instance allocated with memCalloc.

static OVRSessionStatus
callocStack()

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus instance allocated on the thread-local MemoryStack and initializes all its bits to zero.

static OVRSessionStatus.Buffer
callocStack(int capacity)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus.Buffer instance allocated on the thread-local MemoryStack and initializes all its bits to zero.

static OVRSessionStatus.Buffer
callocStack(int capacity,
           org.lwjgl.system.MemoryStack stack)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus.Buffer instance allocated on the specified MemoryStack and initializes all its bits to zero.

static OVRSessionStatus
callocStack(org.lwjgl.system.MemoryStack stack)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus instance allocated on the specified MemoryStack and initializes all its bits to zero.

static OVRSessionStatus
create()

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus instance allocated with BufferUtils.

static OVRSessionStatus.Buffer
create(int capacity)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus.Buffer instance allocated with BufferUtils.

static OVRSessionStatus
create(long address)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus instance for the specified memory address or null if the address is NULL.

static OVRSessionStatus.Buffer
create(long address,
      int capacity)

Create a OVRSessionStatus.Buffer instance at the specified memory.

boolean
DisplayLost()

Returns the value of the DisplayLost field.

boolean
HmdMounted()

Returns the value of the HmdMounted field.

boolean
HmdPresent()

Returns the value of the HmdPresent field.

boolean
IsVisible()

Returns the value of the IsVisible field.

static OVRSessionStatus
malloc()

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus instance allocated with memAlloc.

static OVRSessionStatus.Buffer
malloc(int capacity)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus.Buffer instance allocated with memAlloc.

static OVRSessionStatus
mallocStack()

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus instance allocated on the thread-local MemoryStack.

static OVRSessionStatus.Buffer
mallocStack(int capacity)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus.Buffer instance allocated on the thread-local MemoryStack.

static OVRSessionStatus.Buffer
mallocStack(int capacity,
           org.lwjgl.system.MemoryStack stack)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus.Buffer instance allocated on the specified MemoryStack.

static OVRSessionStatus
mallocStack(org.lwjgl.system.MemoryStack stack)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus instance allocated on the specified MemoryStack.

boolean
ShouldQuit()

Returns the value of the ShouldQuit field.

boolean
ShouldRecenter()

Returns the value of the ShouldRecenter field.

int
sizeof()

Returns the sizeof(struct).

Methods inherited from class org.lwjgl.system.Struct

clear, free

Methods inherited from class org.lwjgl.system.Pointer.Default

address, equals, hashCode, toString

Methods inherited from class java.lang.Object

getClass, notify, notifyAll, wait, wait, wait

Methods inherited from interface org.lwjgl.system.NativeResource

close, free

Field Detail

SIZEOF

public static final int SIZEOF

The struct size in bytes.

Constructor Detail

OVRSessionStatus

public OVRSessionStatus(java.nio.ByteBuffer container)

Creates a OVRSessionStatus instance at the current position of the specified ByteBuffer container. Changes to the buffer's content will be
 visible to the struct instance and vice versa.

The created instance holds a strong reference to the container object.

Method Detail

sizeof

public int sizeof()

Description copied from class: org.lwjgl.system.Struct

Returns the sizeof(struct).

Specified by:

sizeof in class org.lwjgl.system.Struct

IsVisible

public boolean IsVisible()

Returns the value of the IsVisible field.

HmdPresent

public boolean HmdPresent()

Returns the value of the HmdPresent field.

HmdMounted

public boolean HmdMounted()

Returns the value of the HmdMounted field.

DisplayLost

public boolean DisplayLost()

Returns the value of the DisplayLost field.

ShouldQuit

public boolean ShouldQuit()

Returns the value of the ShouldQuit field.

ShouldRecenter

public boolean ShouldRecenter()

Returns the value of the ShouldRecenter field.

malloc

public static OVRSessionStatus malloc()

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus instance allocated with memAlloc. The instance must be explicitly freed.

calloc

public static OVRSessionStatus calloc()

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus instance allocated with memCalloc. The instance must be explicitly freed.

create

public static OVRSessionStatus create()

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus instance allocated with BufferUtils.

create

public static OVRSessionStatus create(long address)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus instance for the specified memory address or null if the address is NULL.

malloc

public static OVRSessionStatus.Buffer malloc(int capacity)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus.Buffer instance allocated with memAlloc. The instance must be explicitly freed.

Parameters:

capacity - the buffer capacity

calloc

public static OVRSessionStatus.Buffer calloc(int capacity)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus.Buffer instance allocated with memCalloc. The instance must be explicitly freed.

Parameters:

capacity - the buffer capacity

create

public static OVRSessionStatus.Buffer create(int capacity)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus.Buffer instance allocated with BufferUtils.

Parameters:

capacity - the buffer capacity

create

public static OVRSessionStatus.Buffer create(long address,
                                             int capacity)

Create a OVRSessionStatus.Buffer instance at the specified memory.

Parameters:

address - the memory address

capacity - the buffer capacity

mallocStack

public static OVRSessionStatus mallocStack()

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus instance allocated on the thread-local MemoryStack.

callocStack

public static OVRSessionStatus callocStack()

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus instance allocated on the thread-local MemoryStack and initializes all its bits to zero.

mallocStack

public static OVRSessionStatus mallocStack(org.lwjgl.system.MemoryStack stack)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus instance allocated on the specified MemoryStack.

Parameters:

stack - the stack from which to allocate

callocStack

public static OVRSessionStatus callocStack(org.lwjgl.system.MemoryStack stack)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus instance allocated on the specified MemoryStack and initializes all its bits to zero.

Parameters:

stack - the stack from which to allocate

mallocStack

public static OVRSessionStatus.Buffer mallocStack(int capacity)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus.Buffer instance allocated on the thread-local MemoryStack.

Parameters:

capacity - the buffer capacity

callocStack

public static OVRSessionStatus.Buffer callocStack(int capacity)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus.Buffer instance allocated on the thread-local MemoryStack and initializes all its bits to zero.

Parameters:

capacity - the buffer capacity

mallocStack

public static OVRSessionStatus.Buffer mallocStack(int capacity,
                                                  org.lwjgl.system.MemoryStack stack)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus.Buffer instance allocated on the specified MemoryStack.

Parameters:

stack - the stack from which to allocate

capacity - the buffer capacity

callocStack

public static OVRSessionStatus.Buffer callocStack(int capacity,
                                                  org.lwjgl.system.MemoryStack stack)

Returns a new OVRSessionStatus.Buffer instance allocated on the specified MemoryStack and initializes all its bits to zero.

Parameters:

stack - the stack from which to allocate

capacity - the buffer capacity

Skip navigation links

Package

Class

Deprecated

Index

Prev Class

Next Class

Frames

No Frames

All Classes

JavaScript is disabled on your browser.

Summary:

Nested |

Field |

Constr |

Method

Detail:

Field |

Constr |

Method

Copyright LWJGL. All Rights Reserved. License terms.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Prof. Chris Gehrz has been promising students a class on the Second World War since he came to Bethel in 2003. In January, he'll finally follow through with the second of four new courses we're rolling out in Interim and Spring 2014.
What are some of the big themes of your WWII course?
While we'll certainly address the American experience of the war, perhaps the central theme of the course is that World War II is best studied as international, not national, history. This was a conflict that started long before Pearl Harbor (1937 in Asia, 1939 in Europe) and affected countries from Burma to Bulgaria, Italy to India. That international sweep will show up in the narrative of the course, but also in the primary sources students encounter. Unlike the World War I class, where we read a lot of poetry, here I'm going to focus on oral histories and films. For the former, students will be reading two books: one based on an oral history project in Japan; the other featuring interviews with Minnesotans. Then we're going to be watching excerpts from films made around the world: some American movies, of course, but also films from China, Japan, Russia, Poland, Germany, France, and Britain.
I'm curious to see what kind of preconceptions students bring to the course. Back when I first started talking about developing this course, ten years ago, it was still somewhat common for students to have had grandparents participate in WWII. Now that connection is fading: most of their grandparents were, at most, young children in the 1940s. On the other hand, they've grown up with films like Saving Private Ryan, TV series like Band of Brothers, and even video games like Call of Duty — how have those media shaped their "memory" of the war?
What do you think students will enjoy most about HIS231L? What will they find most challenging?
It can be hard to sit in a Minnesota classroom in January for over two hours a day, but I think students will find that the course moves along. Even though we're focusing for three weeks on a relatively short stretch of time, so much happens in so many places to so many people that it will probably feel like we're on a rollercoaster ride at times. Lest it feel too much like it's a thousand miles wide and an inch deep, students will work together in groups to research a topic of their choice and produce their own documentary film about it.
Besides the grief and exhaustion that comes with studying an event that killed more than 60 million people… What they should find most challenging is that the idea of World War II as a "Good War" fought by "The Greatest Generation" is very much an American (and perhaps British) notion. If you're French, Dutch, Croatian, German, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, or virtually any other nationality, you'll have a much more ambiguous memory of the war. And I hope students are willing to consider that even American soldiers rarely felt like what they were doing was all that "good," even if it was necessary.
If students take away only one thing from the course, what would you like it to be?
If nothing else, I hope they come away with a heightened degree of empathy for those who participate in warfare — and not just those who fight it. More civilians died in WWII than combatants, and millions more were forced to leave their homes forever.
If you'd like an extended preview of what to expect in the course, Prof. Gehrz has written widely about World War II at his personal blog, The Pietist Schoolman, including recent series on how the war has been commemorated in Minnesota (see also his photoblog on war memorials, Memento belli) and how the war was fought before the United States entered it.
When I was in elementary school, one of the men from the community came and spoke about his experience as a little boy during the war. His dad was in the Filipino underground and went missing one day never to return. He said when the American soldiers arrived, they had sponges in their supplies. The Filipinos were so hungry they mistook the sponges for bread and ate several of them. Made an impression on me (as did the atrocities I heard about). The legacy was ever-present, not least because Filipinos call white people "Joe" (as in G.I. Joe) and loved me because of the American soldiers in the war. I'm always struck by how much closer and real the war felt there.


Since 2009, we have been helping people overcome problems they never thought they could overcome. Now, thanks to the wonders of technology and video chat, we are now helping people nationwide as well as internationally. So, whether you need to lose weight, enhance your performance in any area, sleep better, manage stress, increase your ability to be successful, overcome bad habits, develop a healthier mind-body image, make peace with the past or address physical issues of any kind, we are here to help you succeed.
Hypnotherapy is an amazing tool. It will allow you to discover the incredible power of your own subconscious mind.
who do the work and get better fast!!!
I just received this testimonial from a client who is very dear to my heart. Of course, client names are kept confidential but this person came in very overweight with many health and emotional problems. She was dedicated and we worked very hard to help her overcome issues of low self-esteem and self-loathing that started all the way back in early childhood. You can change. You can heal. It is possible.
This client was as dedicated to overcoming self-esteem and self-sabotage issues. She did it!
Need to lose weight in 2019?
Try our proven weight loss program for real results.
How about a new, slimmer you for 2019? Our weight loss program has proven over and over again to help people lose weight effectively without "dieting". It is designed for permanent weight loss, giving you the trim, healthy body you desire. By reconditioning your subconscious mind, you'll learn to re-think how and why you eat. Wouldn't you like to get off the "on a diet, off a diet roller coaster" and lose the weight for good? There are no forbidden foods, just healthy suggestions to support lasting results. Learn how to eat and think like a thin person does. Many people have found it to be the easiest weight loss they have experienced. Contact us for more information and to set up your free phone consultation.
You've tried to quit smoking before and maybe you have succeeded, however, you started up again. It's time to get the help you need and quit for good. At North Florida Clinical Hypnotherapy we know the issues that are tied into smoking. For some it may just be the way they handle stress, for others perhaps they have smoked for so long, it has become a part of you they are as a person. For others, perhaps they want to quit but they just can't figure out why they can't. But at the end of the day, smoking is incredibly unhealthy, expensive and increasingly socially unacceptable.
Our smoking cessation program has proven time and time again to work. With just 4-6 sessions, you can become cigarette free forever! Our program has an incredibly high success rate even if you have been smoking for years and years. So call us today!
Let's face it, the world has become an incredibly stressful place. If you are having a difficult time managing the stress in your life, give us a call because you don't have to feel exhausted every day. Hypnosis can help you calm down and get back in control. With just a few sessions you will learn techniques of deep relaxation and NLP that allow you to experience greater peace and tranquility daily. Feeling more rested and refreshed, you will have more energy and a more positive attitude to handle every day issues.Your family and friends will thank you!
There is a reason you are sick. Trauma and stress could be a big part of it. Healing sessions can allow you to get rid of the root cause of illness. If you have a physical issue you've been dealing with please call us. Many have gained relief from their suffering with pain, fibromyalgia and more.
Your self confidence begins in your childhood. So many times the messages you get in childhood about who you are as a person are less that ideal and simply not true. With hypnotherapy, you can change this. Improve your life and your chance of success with hypnotherapy.
Parenting can be difficult and yet how you parent your child directly affects their future. Early childhood is the most important time for your child to develop a positive image of himself. These sessions are designed to help you understand your child's mind and be a better parent. As well, hypnotherapy can help you increase your patience and understanding. Children are the future of our world. Be the best parent you can.
Do you suffer from test anxiety or attention and focus problems? If so, consider hypnotherapy. With just a few sessions we can help you improve your test taking abilities whether it is for school exams, SATs, GREs, LSATs or State Licensure exams.


text:
Stolen Valor Act Unconstitutional ?
Thread: Stolen Valor Act Unconstitutional ?
The SWJ Blog reported this yesterday, Stolen Valor Act Unconstitutional (Denver Post article). Here is Judge Blackburn's opinion.
The judge is a Bush 43 appointee (not especially relevant, except to discount a vast "left wing conspiracy").
Here is what is at legal issue:'
Defendant is charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, which amended 18 U.S.C. § 704. As originally enacted, section 704 criminalized the wearing, manufacture, or sale of unauthorized military awards. See 18 U.S.C. § 704(a). Congress, however, felt that this statute was inadequate to protect "the reputation and meaning of military decorations and medals." Pub. L. No. 109-437 § 2, 102 Stat. 3266, 3266 (2006). The Stolen Valor Act expands the protections of section 704 to make it crime to
... falsely represent[] [oneself], 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 ....
Id. § 3 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 704(b)). Section 704(d) provides enhanced penalties for violations implicating certain types of military honors, including, of particular relevance in this case, the Purple Heart and the Silver Star. The Amended Information charges defendant with falsely representing himself to have been awarded a Purple Heart on four different occasions in 2006 and 2009, and falsely representing that he had been awarded a Silver Star on one occasion in 2009. By the instant motion, defendant seeks to dismiss these charges, arguing that the Act is facially invalid as a content-based restriction on free speech.
You can follow through the judge's opinion and decide on its merits or demerits. His basic argument is that Congress cannot make a false statement, standing alone, a crime; and that there are other non-criminal avenues of redress (which Congress found to be inadequate).
Another Stolen Valor Act case is before the Ninth Circuit (from which, anything is possible). Judge Blackburn's opinion applies only to his own district court.
Comments welcome. I think the decision is a lousy one - akin to the 4th Circuit's opinion in the Marine funeral case (also based on bad First Amendment analysis).
Last edited by jmm99; 07-21-2010 at 01:29 AM.
Although I find such cretins odious, I personally don't think their fraud should be singled-out for criminal sanction.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
A Ninth Circuit panel holds Stolen Valor Act ..
unconstitutional (2-1 decision), in US v Xavier Alvarez.
The majority raises an interesting discussion point:
The rule the government and dissent urge us to apply in order to uphold the Act would, if adopted, significantly enlarge the scope of existing categorical exceptions to First Amendment protection. All previous circumstances in which lies have been found proscribable involve not just knowing falsity, but additional elements that serve to narrow what speech may be punished. Indeed, if the Act is constitutional under the analysis proffered by Judge Bybee, then there would be no constitutional bar to criminalizing lying about one's height, weight, age, or financial status on Match.com or Facebook, or falsely representing to one's mother that one does not smoke, drink alcoholic beverages, is a virgin, or has not exceeded the speed limit while driving on the freeway. The sad fact is, most people lie about some aspects of their lives from time to time. Perhaps, in context, many of these lies are within the government's legitimate reach. But the government cannot decide that some lies may not be told without a reviewing court's undertaking a thoughtful analysis of the constitutional concerns raised by such government interference with speech.
There is (or at least "should be") a distinction between a law regulating speech (a lie of some kind) that is simply "unwise"; and another such law that goes further and becomes "unconstitutional". The question is where to draw the line in this "era of absolutism".
Remember the ancient First Amendment example of a constitutional law that prosecuted a person who falsely yells "fire" in a crowded theater.
The dissent by Judge Bybee (yes, he of co-fame with John Yoo and the memos) sums the situation as follows:
In sum, the better interpretation of the Supreme Court's cases and those of our court is that false statements of fact - as a general category - fall outside of First Amendment protection except in certain contexts where such protection is necessary "to protect speech that matters." If a false statement does not fall within one of these exceptions, the general rule applies. And even in the exceptional contexts, a false statement that is neither satirical nor theatrical is unprotected if it is made with knowledge or reckless disregard of falsity.
I'll cast my lot with the dissent on this issue.
Tom Odom
DeRidder LA
I am with you...
Hang the bastage with a blue and white starred ribbon
Global Scout
Everything isn't a Constitutional Issue
Do we really need to enact laws against every possible grievance? Jane Fonda got away with treason against her country, and that is a hell of lot more important than a few maggots pretending to actually be men. We have a sick church group that torments families at military funerals calling their fallen loved ones homosexuals. That crosses the line much further than some insecure piece of crap pretending to be a war hero.
In my opionion we just go back to outing these pathetic pieces of crap, and why we're at it just give them a good ole fashioned ass kicking. We have always had maggots like this in our society, and we really don't need to overcrowd our prisons anymore than they already are over this this, instead put them in the emergency room with a few lumps and then move on. They're not worth much more effort than that.
Two end poiints and a large middle
Since my moral and ethical compass (Tom) has chimed in, I'll stick with the dissent. However, the dissent does not say that we "have to have" (or even "should have") criminal laws against every falsehood.
It strikes me as largely a truism that we should not have criminal laws against most of the "strawmen examples" cited by the majority:
...lying about one's height, weight, age, or financial status on Match.com or Facebook, or falsely representing to one's mother that one does not smoke, drink alcoholic beverages, is a virgin, or has not exceeded the speed limit while driving on the freeway.
However, what I (as something of a small "l" libertarian) think we "should have" is not necessarily what a majority in this country believe we "should have" (and what the governments elected by them enact).
I envision the spectrum of "speech regulation" as involving one end zone where a consensus exists that the regulation is totally wise (clearly constitutional), and another end zone where a consensus exists that the regulation is totally unwise (clearly unconstitutional).
In between those consensus end zones, is a very large playing field where the issue is what regulation can be applied even though it is "unwise" (though not, by consensus, "totally unwise"). Remember that there should be a presumption in favor of legislation, unless you wish to have some sort of unlimited judicial review (a concept rejected by the Founders).
What is the First Amendment really about ? For that, look to the majority and its citation of the Alien and Sedition Act:
Hence the historical rejection of the validity of the Alien and Sedition Act, which "made it a crime, punishable by a $5,000 fine and five years in prison, 'if any person shall write, print, utter or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress . . . , or the President . . . with intent to defame . . . or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States.' " Id. at 273-34 (quoting Sedition Act of 1798, 1 Stat. 596).
The "Alien" portion of the Act held up fairly well; but the "Sedition" portion ran against the US colonial tradition adverse to the British criminal libel (sedition) laws.
Why ? After all, the Sedition part (applicable to US nationals) required a triple whammy proof: falsehood, scandal and malice - as well as an intent to excite "the hatred of the good people of the United States" as one alternative.
If you go back to the political football that the Sedition clauses generated in the Adams and Jefferson administrations, you will find that folks on both sides were playing hardball, verging on insurrection; and that harm was certainly intended (and sometimes effected).
IMO: The reason the Sedition clauses were disfavored was that the speech prohibited struck to the heart of our political system - but without crossing that line where that speech became a "clear and present danger" as part of an insurrection. As such, mostly unregulated speech in this vital political area provided a safety valve against a transition to actual insurrection.
To the 9th Circuit majority, harm, intent and malice are all critical factors. Presumably to them, the greater the harm, intent and malice, the more that legislation can regulate speech. Yet, that is not the history of our First Amendment going back to Zenger. Certainly, the First Amendment looks to "freedom of the press" (not unlimited); but also looks to political freedom and assembly, religious freedom and also, though not expressed in the amendment, economic freedom. Those are the speech areas in which regulation is most suspect; and those are the areas that "matter" (as Jay Bybee writes).
In the 9th Circuit case, the interference of the Stolen Valor Act with politics, religion and economics is not apparent to me; except in one respect. Alvarez made his false statement in a political context. Some politicians enhance their service records (or invent them) - just as the anti-Adams and anti-Jefferson folks libelled those office holders (and probably lied about their own credentials). So, lying is part of US political advancement - and is best met by counter-facts telling the truth.
So, I can't totally agree with Jay Bybee that:
The principles in New York Times do not extend to false self-promotion. Nor do these principles extend to false self promotion by public officials - that is, to officials who portray themselves in a false but positive light. Public discourse requires that citizens are equally free to praise or to condemn their government and its officials, but I can see no value in false, self-aggrandizing statements by public servants. Indeed, the harm from public officials outright lying to the public on matters of public record should be obvious. If the Stolen Valor Act "chills" false autobiographical claims by public officials such as Alvarez, our public discourse will not be the worse for the loss.
I also "see no value in false, self-aggrandizing statements by public servants." But, I also cannot see where those statements should be made criminal - especially in our present "era of absolutism" where "I gotcha" is the prevalent mantra.
So, perhaps, we should have a limited, qualified constitutional privilege for lying, venal politicians - and simply rely on outing them as both Entropy and Global Scout have suggested.
...I can see no value in false, self-aggrandizing statements by public servants. Indeed, the harm from public officials outright lying to the public on matters of public record should be obvious.
The judge improperly frames the issue. It's not a matter of whether the speech has value. It's a matter of whether there is sufficient harm for the government to justify infringing upon the speech. The government failed miserably in demonstrating such harm.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go to a ceremony honoring me as one of the few remaining living recipients of the CMoH.
If this were the test ....
from Schmedlap
It's a matter of whether there is sufficient harm for the government to justify infringing upon the speech.
incompetent rabble-rousers would skate and only competent rabble-rousers would be prosecuted.
So, Martin Luther King was competent and his speeches were certainly intended to do harm to the segregated institutions upheld by the state governments in the states where he was speaking. Thus, MLK's speech should have been infringed, but Uncle Tom's wasn't because it meant no harm (and couldn't cause any) to those institutions ?
I don't think harm enters the picture until speech becomes part of insurrection. Effective, unpopular political speech deserves more protection than ineffective, political babble that the majority regards as harmless to its established institutions.
Since the "CMoH" does not exist (though the MoH and the CMoHS both exist), you are safe from prosecution. However, beware of wearing the SCoH (especially in some parts of Virginia), unless you fought in the War Against Northern Aggression.
North Mountain, West Virginia
Originally Posted by Schmedlap
There goes Mr. S. Lap talking like a lawyer again ...
stanleywinthrop
The judge correctly identified the law in question as regulating speeched based on content (content based regulation).
As such, the proper legal standard is strict scrutiny:
1. The government must demonstrate a compelling government ineterest in regulating the speech and
2. assuming the government has demonstrated such a compelling interest, it must show that the regulation is narrowly tailored to meet such an interest.
The government (rather poorly in my opinion) failed to demonstrate a compelling interest, and as such the judge never had to go on to consider the above second element.
It remains to be seen whether other, smarter, more motivated government lawyers can properly identify to higher courts a compelling interest in regulating the type of speech here.
AdamG
Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Lecturer William G. Hillar entranced audiences as a globe-trotting, highly trained, retired Green Beret colonel whose attempt to rescue his daughter from kidnappers inspired the hit movie, "Taken." But it was not really his life, it was all lies.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/0...guilty-040911/
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail
http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
Here's the Professional Soldiers thread ...
that took Hillar down (mentioned in the Army Times article), William G. Hillar Special Forces FRAUD (32 pages).
Congrats to the folks at Professional Soldiers who contributed to this result.
So... Does this mean it should be legal for me to dress up like a police officer, drive a police looking car and pull over good looking women and offer them the opportunity to give sexual favors in return for not getting a ticket?
It's just "content-laden speech" after all.
Some judges are just stupid. They were lawyers once, after all....
Denver on occasion
I think there is a fundamental difference between impersonating an officer in order to commit a sex crime and pretending to have been a soldier in order to impress people.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
There is a difference
(I'm leaving out the adjective "fundamental") between a person pretending to have been a soldier in order to impress people and that only, and a person pretending to have been a soldier in order to impress people to obtain money or other lucre from them. Hillar fell into the second category.
Drew made a useful point - even though it was made for another purpose re: 2nd sentence - in this comment:
from 120mm
In truth, most all judges are lawyers and remain so while they are judges. Military judges have a triple whammy; they are judges, lawyers and military officers. Imagine the possibilities for stupidness in that combo - but also the possibilities for smartness.
The point is that everyone (non-lawyers included) carries with them a certain perspective on what the "Law" is. I'm not going to go into a long song and dance about how I would use that in legal strategy and tactics (yippee). But, the "Law" to any individual (if he or she admits it) is not the written law, whether in statute or court decision. It is far more than that.
So, the "Law" may be shaped by the decision-seeker (usually a lawyer) and by the decision-maker (usually a judge or jury). Now, in the Stolen Valor cases (and in the Marine Burial case), I felt that the "Law" (my view) upheld constitutionality and said so in SWC posts. Other folks (lawyers and non-lawyers) felt differently and so did SCOTUS.
In Hillar, the prosecutor shifted gears and, by going the "wire fraud" route, shaped the "Law of the Case". The judge agreed (since the indictment stood); and Hillar pleaded guilty:
As part of his plea, Hillar agreed to pay back $171,000 he made by lecturing universities, soldiers, and federal and local law enforcement agencies while falsely claiming he was a counter-terrorism expert and had earned doctorate from the University of Oregon.
Bottom Line: The "Law of the Case" is different from the "Law".
Just to be fussy, the "fundamental" difference is between impersonating a police officer and pretending to have been a soldier.
If I get your point right, you are saying there is a difference between what people perceive as being just and how the statutes are written. You can use the perception of justice to affect how the statute is interpreted or applied. Is that it?
Not exactly,
but this is part of it:
from Carl
f I get your point right, you are saying there is a difference between what people perceive as being just and how the statutes are written. You can use the perception of justice to affect how the statute is interpreted or applied. Is that it?
It will take more than a sound bite - and I want to avoid technical Bravo Sierra.
I'll play with this a bit and come up with a summary of "trade secrets" on "shaping" the "Law of the Case".
BTW: my construct is right for me. I'm a "technician" and not an "artist", which means that I apply lots of preparation to open up avenues to intuition. In short, I rely on perspiration, not inspiration.
That has nothing to do with destructive speed ("tempo") in the courtroom - I like blowing away "an artist's" arguments. Other folks will have completely different ideas.
- and I want to avoid technical Bravo Sierra.
I really love it when you use the phonetic alphabet to explain technical terms!
I must've been an influence at one time or another
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Indeed, Stan ...
indeed, you have been.
The phonetic alphabet seems to add a bit of class to the public presentation - not much class, mind you - but some.
To say nothing of using such jargon as "blowing away" the other guy's argument.
Last edited by jmm99; 04-20-2011 at 08:46 PM.
I think the arguments were made incorrectly to the court and by congress. The wearing of awards, or claim to awards, ribbons or other significant meritorious or valor certifications are not a free speech issue. They are a certification issue that may result in monetary or significant compensation including assuaging license fees for vehicles (Pearl Harbor Survivor plates, MIA Plates, Disabled Veteran), increased consideration for employment (veterans preference, Purple Heart awardee). As such to even merely make claim could be considered a fraudulent act. Further the simple claimant in doing so even outside of state sponsored programs could be in conspiracy to defraud through claim to licensure or certification of experience they do not have.
No. Not an attorney but was quizzed daily by a judge.
Quick Navigation Law Enforcement Top
6 Apr 09 - USA F-16's Intercept CAN Cessna
By milnews.ca in forum The Whole News

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


2003 St. Supery Cabernet Sauvignon | ...so I remember it tomorrow.
St. Supery was (and still is) one of my absolute favorite Vineyards & Tasting Rooms to visit in Napa Valley. They simply just do everything right. As soon as you walk in the doors though, you get that 'welcome home' feeling and its as if you always knew them.
We tasted through their lineup, and quickly became wine club members. While I knew of St. Supery before we visited them, I don't think that we were living in CA at the time we visited. Once we did though, we'd visit whenever we went to the Valley, and made sure that all of our guests got to experience it as well. We even became friendly with some of the tasting room team, some of whom are still there today (Becca!).
I love the fact that they offer almost every major varietal, along with the higher end Dollarhide Vineyard wines, and of course – my good friends Elu and Virtu (the Bordeaux blends). I started collecting Elu's, so that I could have a vertical to taste thru one day. I currently own a 1996 -> present bottle of each, and am planning a tasting party so that we can go thru them all at once…but that's a different post.
I have a few of the '03 and '04 St. Supery Cabernets, and they are both wonderful in their own right, however they are drastically different. Personally, the '03 is more my style NOW, but as the '04 softens over time it may take the crown. It's a blend of 87% Cabernet Sauvignon, 10% Merlot, and 3% Petit Verdot.
There are 2 primary differences between the two – the '04 has a strong (almost overpowering) oaky nose and flavor, and the '03 seems more balanced. The '03 has a nicely nuanced cola nose, with a hint of dijon mustard to it. The oak on the '03 is more vanilla than anything else, and it allows the fruit to shine thru.
The tannins are beautiful, just beautiful. They layer in between the fruit perfectly, and just TAKE OVER right when they should and carry on and on and on. As for the main star between the oak and tannins – the fruit – there are no complaints here either. The fruit is black cherry and blueberry on the nose, and a nice depth of cassis, plum, and anise. They are a little lighter than I would ideally prefer – but given everything else this has going on, adding in thick luscious fruit would just triple the price and everything needs a weakness (if you want to call it that).
All in all, this is a fantastic wine, and worth way more than it's $30-35 price point.
Make no mistake, I LOVE St. Supery wines, and the '03 doesn't disappoint. In fact, in impresses at every turn. Kudos to St. Supery for making quintessential Napa Valley wines which consistently outperform their competitors and over-deliver at their price point.