High court torn over law banning lie about medals

Seattle Times ^ | February 22, 2012 | Mark Sherman - AP

[jazusamo]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared sharply divided Wednesday over a law that makes it a crime to lie about having been awarded top military honors.

The justices engaged in spirited debate over the constitutionality of a 2006 law aimed at curbing false claims about military exploits.

Some justices said they worried that upholding the Stolen Valor Act could lead to other limits on speech, including laws that might make it illegal to lie about an extramarital affair or a college degree, or to impress a date.

[Da Coyote]

Heck, the president has lied about almost everything he’s (never) done...so how can we pick on other liars?

[skaterboy]

this law will be overturned..8 to 1 maybe 9-0....free speech is free speech..westboro and larry flynt have proved it

[hinckley buzzard]

This is a beautiful illustration of the proposition that courts of law are inadequate blunt instruments in discerning matters of right and wrong.

[Retain Mike]

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appears correct. I was momentarily distracted by pleasant speculations about sending elected officials to jail, but criminalizing even egregious lies is simply wrong by the First Amendment. However, profiting from lies in terms of power and money is wrong. In that case you have victims. The act does seem to recognize the link in findings by saying:

(2) Federal law enforcement officers have limited ability to prosecute fraudulent claims of receipt of military decorations and medals.

However, the act goes on to ignore fraud and make the statements by themselves criminal. I will speculate the problem resides with disinterest by law enforcement and district attorneys in establishing the linkages for acquisition of power and money, and prosecuting the resulting crimes.

I will also speculate that powerful constituencies have not altered their attitudes toward the military since Vietnam. I was popularly regarded as a deranged, drug addicted, baby killing, fascist, pig. Now my Marine son holds popular distinction as a despondent, mentally challenged, chemically dependent, cold blooded, killer. And if you think that characterization inaccurate consult, John Kerry, Jack Murtha, and the VA answering machine.

It is interesting to witness these claims of manly valor after the fact. A fellow veteran recently sent me an email reproducing an internet claim (Thank heavens for such irrefutable sources!) that from census records six or eight times as many claim service in Vietnam as actually did. Here is another reason to hold my Baby Boomer generation in contempt.

Text of S. 1998 [109th]: Stolen Valor Act of 2005
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-1998

[vette6387]

Glad to see these jerks worrying about the gut issues of our time. When you get right down to it, the SCOTUS is a bunch of self-serving, lazy jerks whose love for “the law,” and its “wonderful nuances,” transcend doing anything meaningful for the country they all supposedly “love.” Their motus operandi, “let’s wait for a “really good case” before we do anything substantive, and then do less than it takes to resolve the issue.” Screw all of them!

[brivette]

your right.. “I’m the king of the world” /sarc...

[GeronL]

I would probably agree but I would have a very broad definition of ‘profitng’.

[Sgt_Schultze]

I wonder if you lie on a job application about military service, whether, upon being fired, you can sue...

[cuban leaf]

—this law will be overturned..8 to 1 maybe 9-0....free speech is free speech..westboro and larry flynt have proved it—

My take as well. In the US, it is legal to lie. It is protected by the constitution. Hey, did I ever tell you I’m George Bush (sr)?

[montag813]

Don’t existing fraud laws cover this?

[Garvin]

“Some justices said they worried that upholding the Stolen Valor Act could lead to other limits on speech, including laws that might make it illegal to lie about an extramarital affair or a college degree, or to impress a date”

So it’s illegal to be an adulterer, but not to lie about?

[RatRipper]

fraud is fraud is fraud - someone gains something of value by pretending to be something they are not, even if it is only the unjustifable respect and trust of someone else. Since when does freedom of speech permit commission of fraud? If this law does not stand, we have become a hopeless legal-pretzel of a nation groping in the dark to find our way.

[SandRat]

And becuse he’s right about it I was awwarded 3 MOHs, 2 VCs, 2 Iron Crosses. </sac

[al44]

including laws that might make it illegal to lie about an extramarital affair

Nice to see the Clinton appointees still have Bill's back /sarc.

[Joe 6-pack]

I both agree and disagree with you. It would be a far better thing that individual and public morality, in and of themselves precluded individuals from these types of lies, and the perpetrators of such would simply be ostracized by their associates. That would be desireable to any legislation.

Having said that, these misrepresentations are of a different order, and I can support the Stolen Valor Act for a number of reasons.

First, any military award or appointment has an extensive paper trail behind it with the names and signatures of recommending and approving authorities. To claim an award that one has not received is to (mis)represent a chain of official government documents that do not exist. It's tantamount to any forgery or alteration of official records.

Second, most fraud laws require an attempt to obtain something of monetary value. While valor in combat or general service to the nation may not be expressed in a quantifiable dollar amount, one would be hard pressed to argue they are not "of value." If you have a $5.00 bill in your wallet, that is a "recognition" that you provided another person with a good or service worth $5.00...or you stole it. That somebody wears a Silver Star should be recognition of their having provided the nation with a service worth a Silver Star...or they stole it.

Again, while it's impossible to directly equate a military award with a monetary value, "stolen valor" perpetrators are generally analogous to counterfeiters. Somebody passing a counterfeit $5.00 bill in effect, victimizes every person who has rightfully earned a $5.00 bill by slightly undercutting the recognized value of the real thing. In that same vein, if everybody at a bar, town hall, etc. shows up wearing a Navy Cross, those who have rightfully merited the award will be deprived of the honor and recognition to which they are entitled.

JMHO.

[jazusamo]

As I understand it fraud laws cover this if any monetary value is received by the liar.

My question on this has been are votes considered monetary value if a liar is running for an office of some kind. This Alvarez was elected to a water board in Pomona, CA. By his lying about this after he was a board member be helpful to his reelection when it comes up and would that be considered a monetary value? I don't know.

[Notary Sojac]

Since when does freedom of speech permit commission of fraud?

If you apply for a job for which there is a veterans' preference in hiring, and lie about having served, that is fraud.

If you tell an acquaintance you were in combat in Vietnam when that's not true, sorry, that's not prosecutable as fraud. If it was, we might as well haul Bush Sr. into court for having said "no new taxes".

[jazusamo]

That’s basically the way I feel about it.

[Above My Pay Grade]

Speaking of Westboro. I was wondering why is it that the Newark police could close off a 6 block radius for Whitney Houston’s funeral, but it is “unconstitutional” to prevent those evil nutjobs from harassing the families of heroes who died in combat, at their funerals?