Stolen Valor Act

[Woot22]

This is way way way off the topic of kilts but since the forum has many vets on it I figured I would go ahead and post this link. Apparently the stolen valor act is unconstitutional now as it limits peoples freedom of speech. Too bad really because the guy who brought this to court is a habitual liar. Seems to me the gentleman needs a good ole fashioned "wall to wall" counseling with an Army vet or two.
Anyway here is the link.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...circuit-court/

[davidlpope]

It's the Ninth Circuit, though, so I expect them to make bad law. I suspect it will get sorted out on appeal.

David

[MacBean]

Well-written piece, as the NYTimes often seems to offer. I agree that you can't legislate against lies, but perhaps there might be some other way of making it difficult for liars to make false claims such as easy verification on the web, making creation of fake medals or stealing medals a crime, etc.

Hard not to get upset by stories like this, I agree.

[vmac3205]

On the other hand, my husband changed his last name many years after being highly decorated. Several times in the past year he has been a target of "heroes" who have tried to spread rumors behind his back, even going so far as to contact the FBI. Amazingly, none of these "honorable and brave" men have ever had the guts to confront him personally and simply ask him about his decorations. They are willing to go to events and talk to other people about him though. Where is the valor in that?

[BobsYourUncle]

It's the Ninth Circuit, though, so I expect them to make bad law. I suspect it will get sorted out on appeal.

David

I'm not defending the Ninth Cir., but the article does note that the three judges participating in the decision were Republican appointments....that may make a difference in whether this decision was a stretch, or the product of a mainstream legal analysis.

No one condones or accepts the Defendant's lies as appropriate behavior, his lies are reprehensible, it just seems from the summary that the court's analysis was that there are other ways of accomplishing the goals of the statute that don't involve criminalizing mere speech.

Certainly someone who claims vets benefits by means of a lie about service that did not happen can be prosecuted for fraud, and someone who obtains other kinds of benefits, like public office [which this guy may have done] or charitable contributions, can likely be prosecuted for crimes in most jurisdictions. I would like to read the entire decision myself to get a better sense of the court's analysis, but I can see the rationale as it has been reported.

[davidlpope]

On the other hand, my husband changed his last name many years after being highly decorated. Several times in the past year he has been a target of "heroes" who have tried to spread rumors behind his back, even going so far as to contact the FBI. Amazingly, none of these "honorable and brave" men have ever had the guts to confront him personally and simply ask him about his decorations. They are willing to go to events and talk to other people about him though. Where is the valor in that?

Interesting point. Almost makes you wish that they issued wallet-sized DD214s to eliminate all the drama...Sort of like having to have a license for your animal mask sporran!

[davidlpope]

I would like to read the entire decision myself to get a better sense of the court's analysis, but I can see the rationale as it has been reported.

Here's a link to the slip opinion:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...7/08-50345.pdf

[Lallans]

False claims of national service are often used for financial fraud in various ways, ie, to defraud money or obtain governement jobs, or of course to get elected. Those instances should be pursued in court and punished to the max- easiest where money changes hands. Of course prosecution often does occur in any case but the ones involving stolen valour could be given particular vigour. That would at least help protect real veterans (and the other victims) and leave only congenital liars and nut jobs parading around like sad losers, gaining nothing.

[sanddog28]

I couldn’t agree more with Judge Jay S. Bybee's dissenting opinion. If we are unable to make the lie itself unlawful then write a law to protect the award itself, especially when it comes to the MoH. Something along the same lines as threatening an official or the president. Even if the threat is a lie, as you would never follow through with it you can still be punished for it, and as far as I am concerned defiling this award is far worse than the empty threats that are already punished under law.

[wildrover]

False claims of national service are often used for financial fraud in various ways, ie, to defraud money or obtain governement jobs, or of course to get elected. Those instances should be pursued in court and punished to the max- easiest where money changes hands. Of course prosecution often does occur in any case but the ones involving stolen valour could be given particular vigour. That would at least help protect real veterans (and the other victims) and leave only congenital liars and nut jobs parading around like sad losers, gaining nothing.

True enough, and it always seems from what I read that they're easy to spot...sticking out like sore thumbs.

I can see the argument in the CA and CO courts' opinions. I might not like it...but I can understand it. Personally, I would prefer the Act stand, since the people who abuse the honor of others are always doing so for their own personal gain, whether it is a notable financial gain or not.

-Sean