Stolen Valor New Wrinkle

[davedove]

I don't recall who said it and I'm paraphrasing, but free speech isn't about the speech you like, it's about the speech you hate.

In other words, we can't pick and choose which speech we feel should be protected.  I don't like this any more than anyone else, but I can see the court's point of view.

[Seabee219]

In serving 15 years in the military, I find what he did to be UNAMERICAN. To lie about being a war hero and thinking of all the men and women to put on a uniform and died for this country is a slap in my face. (just how I feel)

[flyboy53]

The tragedy is that a veteran/military member serves to defend the right of free speech as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and the case is dismissed on the basis of a right of free speech.

You don't advocate for veterans causes by impersonating a veteran. You can be a staunch advocate and when the question is posed if you are a veteran or not, he should have done something about it....not talking himself into a corner with lies or misrepresentations.

[Seabee219]

The tragedy is that a veteran/military member serves to defend the right of free speech as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and the case is dismissed on the basis of a right of free speech.

You don't advocate for veterans causes by impersonating a veteran. You can be a staunch advocate and when the question is posed if you are a veteran or not, he should have done something about it....not talking himself into a corner with lies or misrepresentations.

I  Agree,  Could not have said it better myself. 

[DogCollar]

It's more than a little ironic that this judges' decision came down the same week that Medal of Honor recipient, Vernon Baker died.  Baker's WWII heroism was well known, but because he was African-American he was denied consideration for the MOH until the late 1990's when he was finally awarded the honor by President Clinton.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/us/15baker.html

It's ironic that a man who risked his life to save his comrades in combat, was denied his due honor for over 50 years!  Compare that to a man who wears a uniform and awards that he did not earn, and a judge calls that protected speech.  I guess it is.  However, I guess I can't help but feel that this gentlemans "free speech" has had the effect of spitting on persons like Vernon Baker.

[JayT]

Irony: An outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

What does Vernon Baker's death have to do with this discussion? He's still an American soldier, and a hero. This court decision does not less what he did. 

Neo Nazi's spit on Jews.
Klansmen spit on blacks, Jews, Catholics, and everyone else.
Greenpeace spits on heavy industry.
Black Panters spat on whites.
Fox New spits on President Obama.
General McChrystal was dismissed rather then executed.

This is America. Freedom's don't end at the distasteful. If this guy profited from his lies, then he should be punished.

[Trung Si Ma]

Why am I not surprised to find that this judge never served and spent the entire Vietnam war in college (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Blackburn)?  Legal doesn't make something right.

If he was born in 1950, and would been a teenager and of normal age to be in college and then law school why would should it be held against him that he didn't serve in Vietnam?

That said. I find this ruling ridiculous.

I did not say that I held his lack of service against him.  What I said was that he went to college instead of Vietnam.  A very liberal college that was (is) known for its anti-military views and then never served in the military thereafter to get another perspective on what this clown's actions mean to those of us who did serve.

As to the flag burning aspect of "free" speech - I have no problem with anyone burning the flag that they are personally wrapped in.

[DogCollar]

Ok...perhaps irony is not the correct description.  You got me there.  Would you accept "interesting juxtoposition?"

A real hero juxtaposed against a faux hero.

An African-American denied appropriate recognition for his actions for over 50 years (although...he never sought the MOH and did not consider himself a hero) juxtaposed against someone who wears a military uniform when he never served, and wears decorations that indicate exemplary service in combat (again, he never served a day in the military) and a court declares that he is only exercising his 1st amendment rights of free speech!

Ok.  I can see the courts point.  And, I believe in protecting speech, no matter how repugnant.  I also believe that the second gentlemans actions were undeniably dishonorable.  As I stated in my above post...I feel that his dishonorable actions spits on the memory of persons such as Vernon Baker. 

Exercising free speech has its consequences.  That's all I was referring too.

[spacecommand]

I can understand what the judge is saying.

If this guy was saying he was a vet and was going around doing speeches and whatever that is one item.

If this guy was going around collecting military benefits, and ordering real people around under color of authority then that's definitely a crime and needs to be prosecuted.

[Short Field]

Exercising free speech has its consequences.  That's all I was referring too.

I don't like this slime ball or any other slime balls who impersonate military personnel.  My dislike for them increases when they claim honors they never earned.  But my disgust and dislike for a person and their actions does not make them criminals.  Would I be upset if they accidentally fell up a couple of flights of stairs - nope. 

The greatest danger to our country are the people who believe they can pick and choose the laws they want to obey.   

[Hawk200]

The greatest danger to our country are the people who believe they can pick and choose the laws they want to obey.

There is also the fact that far more people are adopting the same behavior.

[Krapenhoeffer]

People wearing medals they didn't earn in no way cheapens the value of medals worn by people who earn them, in my book. The only person dishonored by this impersonation is the impersonator himself. Shame on him.

However, from a purely legal standpoint, the Stolen Valor law was too vague in my book and did not offer adequate protection for people who did not earn medals, but have legitimate reasons for wearing one (i.e. professional reenactors, during their business, and actors portraying characters who earned them).

At the same time, I may not agree with all the decisions of the Courts, but I abide by them. Equal Protection of the Law, even when I don't want it to, is the goal of the Constitution.

And another note: I'm not going to name names, but I would like to remind people that the vast majority of liberals find these impersonators shameful as well. We're all Americans, and we all pretty much want the same thing. Liberals and Conservatives just happen to have different means of achieving the common end.

God Save the United States, and the Honorable Courts.

[Rotorhead]

Why am I not surprised to find that this judge never served and spent the entire Vietnam war in college (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Blackburn)?  Legal doesn't make something right.

No, but it does make it legal, which is all that is asked in this case.

[flyboy53]

I can understand what the judge is saying.

If this guy was saying he was a vet and was going around doing speeches and whatever that is one item.

If this guy was going around collecting military benefits, and ordering real people around under color of authority then that's definitely a crime and needs to be prosecuted.

Our's is not to understand because we don't have the court transcripts. I would, however, like to see how the ruling was justified.

People wearing medals they didn't earn in no way cheapens the value of medals worn by people who earn them, in my book. The only person dishonored by this impersonation is the impersonator himself. Shame on him.

Yes it certainly does. I am not one to pump my chest and say "look at my medals," because they represent something very personal to me -- that I measured up once or twice in my life. This is especially true since one of my Commendation Medals was for an act at a plane crash that didn't warrant an Airman's Medal. The citation said "courage and extraordinary professionalism." To  know what I did to earn that medal is tarnished by someone who just puts it on.

The real tragedy is that outside the military, if you are a true veteran who just wants to get on with his or her life, all the medals and a quarter won't even buy you a cup of coffee.

[m981]

Sadly, I've seen simllar fraud in our own organization, from a few genuine stolen valor cases to an o-6 wearing an unearned Spaatz award. The last one is more like stolen achievement, but at least it's still illegal somewhere.

[Patterson]

hmmm.....

 

[Gunner C]

This was supplied to me:

The question/issue of before the district court concerning 1st amendment protect is outlined on pages 3 and 4.

"Amendment significance at all. Although conceding that some falsehoods may be
protected in the context of encouraging public debate and political discourse – "speech that 'matters'" in the government's view – the government maintains that defendant's statements and other, similar "[p]etty lies . . . do not promote the uninhibited marketplace of ideas and therefore are not protected" by the First Amendment. (Amended Government's Supplemental Brief at 10 [#27], filed January 11, 2010.) Stated differently, because defendant was not conveying a political message, speaking on a matter of public concern, or expressing a viewpoint or opinion, so the argument goes, his speech does not merit constitutional protection. The only other court that appears to have addressed the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act relied on a similar rationale in rejecting a defendant's First Amendment challenge to the statute.
Another court has ruled on the SVA calling it constitutional. 

(See id. App, Exh. A (Order Denying Defendant's Motion To Dismiss, United States v. Alvarez, CR 07-1035(A)-RGK).)

Regardless, of how the 9th district rules, this same question will be addressed before the 10th district United States Court of Appeals, should the case be appealed, I think it will. Then, if both courts rule that the law contained in the SVA is Constitutional, then the law will be settled, and SVA will be enforceable.

If each District court rules differently, then a split court will result, and the constitutionality of SVA must be settled in the SCOTUS.

If I had my guess, it will be declared constitutional by SCOTUS 5-4 on the grounds that it is not protected speech.

[capchiro]

Interestingly, the Top Cop in our county, Mickey LLoyd, is being investigated for putting on his application that he was a Navy Seal, had served 18 months in VN, and had seven medals for Valor.  Seems like it ain't so.  We will have to see how this plays out.   

[DakRadz]

One point of order. The "top cop" in any county is the elected Sheriff, not an appointed public safety director. A sheriff can only be suspended or removed by the Governor and then following an extended procedure mandated by state law. The public safety director is a position created by the county and serves at its discretion.

This EDIT: the above was posted on the 11Alive news story comment section. Seems valid enough.

Well, the Lt Col seems to be objective- admitted that Lloyd could just have enemies, but also said if necessary he'd bring in the big guns.
Pretty sure he thinks he's guilty, though.

[Gunner C]

Interestingly, the Top Cop in our county, Mickey LLoyd, is being investigated for putting on his application that he was a Navy Seal, had served 18 months in VN, and had seven medals for Valor.  Seems like it ain't so.  We will have to see how this plays out.

Posers are being actively sought out by the SEAL community.  I'm part of an effort to root out fakes who are posing as Special Forces/Green Berets.  In both areas, great pains are taken to publicly embarrass them to the greatest extent legally possible.  There is a parallel, but more specialized that is going after people who claim to have been in MACV SOG.  They're being exposed as the posers that they are.  Sheriffs,  such as the one above, should resign immediately if found to be lying about their service.  A DD214 will document all service and is the final arbiter of the controversy.