US Supreme Court to review Stolen Valor Act

[Dad2-4]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/17/supreme-court-to-take-up-stolen-valor-act/
Mr. Alvarez clearly violated the law. Let's all pray that the law is upheld by the Supreme Court. Granted, I don't like to see random people wearing medals just as a fashion, but to claim to be an actual recipient and use that claim to further your own puposes is wrong.

[SABRE17]

It's about time...

[RiverAux]

Never quite understood how this got thrown out.  If the Supremes decide against the Act it will be interesting to see how they deal with the general issue of the federal government having an interest in controlling who wears military uniforms and parts thereof. 

[SARDOC]

Never quite understood how this got thrown out.  If the Supremes decide against the Act it will be interesting to see how they deal with the general issue of the federal government having an interest in controlling who wears military uniforms and parts thereof.

The Act got thrown out by the ninth Circuit Court of appeals as unconstitutional because it violated the plaintiff's right to free Speech.  It can't be made against the law unless the government had a legitimate compelling need to restrict it.  The analogy was made that lying about your height or weight is still lying but like the Stolen Valor Act that the Government doesn't have a compelling need to restrict.  There was no tangible fraud in this case so it was dismissed.

That being said I think wearing awards for Valor that you did not earn is wrong and completely disrespectful of those who have.

[RiverAux]

The analogy was made that lying about your height or weight is still lying but like the Stolen Valor Act that the Government doesn't have a compelling need to restrict.  There was no tangible fraud in this case so it was dismissed.

Guess some pounds are going to come off my drivers license next time I renew!

[JeffDG]

The Act got thrown out by the ninth Circuit Court of appeals as unconstitutional because it violated the plaintiff's right to free Speech. 

The Act was invalidated by the 9th.  The Supremes regularly reach 9-0 reversals of the 9th.

IIRC, it's the most frequently reversed court.

[NCRblues]

The 9th circus court... ya they are some winners.

[SARDOC]

The Act was invalidated by the 9th.  The Supremes regularly reach 9-0 reversals of the 9th.

IIRC, it's the most frequently reversed court.

It's all statistics...The Ninth Circuit Court Of appeals is frequently called the most overturned court because of the numbers of cases heard and overturned.  It is by far the largest court in the geographical area it covers including very large population centers.  In a few articles I've read it's very difficult to actually make that statement.  The shear volume of cases they deal with, lead to an increased amount being appealed to the USSC.  Because of that large volume they do have a high total of cases being overturned after the USSC determines they will hear the case.  For cases that the USSC does decide to hear other courts actually have higher percentage cases overturned...it the 2004-2005 session the 1st, 2nd and 10th circuits were overturned 100% of the time on cases the USSC selected to hear.   You can massage the statistics anyway you want but overall it looks that the 9th is usually within 1% of the national average.

[JeffDG]

The Act was invalidated by the 9th.  The Supremes regularly reach 9-0 reversals of the 9th.

IIRC, it's the most frequently reversed court.

It's all statistics...The Ninth Circuit Court Of appeals is frequently called the most overturned court because of the numbers of cases heard and overturned.  It is by far the largest court in the geographical area it covers including very large population centers.  In a few articles I've read it's very difficult to actually make that statement.  The shear volume of cases they deal with, lead to an increased amount being appealed to the USSC.  Because of that large volume they do have a high total of cases being overturned after the USSC determines they will hear the case.  For cases that the USSC does decide to hear other courts actually have higher percentage cases overturned...it the 2004-2005 session the 1st, 2nd and 10th circuits were overturned 100% of the time on cases the USSC selected to hear.   You can massage the statistics anyway you want but overall it looks that the 9th is usually within 1% of the national average.

Cool...good stats, had never thought it through that way.

[ThatOneGuy]

I agree it's time for the gov to start cracking down. This guy will deserve whatever punishment he gets. He is exactly like the other guy on the news a couple days ago, said he served in the Army and did something heroic in Vietnam and got the MoH and he was discovered to be a fraud. Glad something is finally being done about these occurences...  :clap:

[Major Lord]

The Ninth Circuit Court is overturned on Constitutional issues so often, because the vast majority of its members subscribe to the "living, breathing" school of thought ( i.e., they can make the laws by fiat and remove those other pesky branches from the loop) There is not one strict constructionist among them. It would be nice if we could take the Justices and divide them up amongst other circuit courts. Even when they get a case right, its mostly by accident.

Major Lord

[NIN]

The Act got thrown out by the ninth Circuit Court of appeals as unconstitutional because it violated the plaintiff's right to free Speech.  It can't be made against the law unless the government had a legitimate compelling need to restrict it.  The analogy was made that lying about your height or weight is still lying but like the Stolen Valor Act that the Government doesn't have a compelling need to restrict.  There was no tangible fraud in this case so it was dismissed.

That being said I think wearing awards for Valor that you did not earn is wrong and completely disrespectful of those who have.

While I agree that its distasteful that people represent themselves as something they're not (believe you me, I like nothing better than to expose a fraud as just that), I tend to believe that the Stolen Valor Act is not the way to go about it.

I heard that same thing on NPR this morning: That it basically attempts to regulate lying where there is no actual fraud involved, kind of like lying about your weight on Match.com.  I thought that was a pretty apt analogy.

If a guy lies about military service to obtain a job, obtain benefits not otherwise owed, or otherwise defrauds someone based on that status, then yeah, they need to be responsible for their actions and said fraud. 

If I claim I made $150,000 a year at my last job, and my prospective employer doesn't bother to check, hey, awesome.  But if I make a sworn statement attesting to my educational status for a federal job application (don't know if thats something you make a sworn statement about, but go with it..) and I'm later found out to be full of it, well, at the very least I should lose that job, and there probably should be a penalty for fraud.

But if I tell some hot girl at the bar that I flew that plane like Tom Cruise, am I guilty of being a gigantic d-bag, or am I a felon?

[PHall]

The Stolen Valor Act's problem is that it was written poorly and enforced selectively.
Being struck down by the USSC isn't the end for a law, it just shows where improvements need to be made.

[RiverAux]

The Stolen Valor Act's problem is that it was written poorly and enforced selectively.
Being struck down by the USSC isn't the end for a law, it just shows where improvements need to be made.

I would think that would depend on exactly how they go about doing it, whether on general principles or on technicalities that could be fixed by Congress. 

[JeffDG]

But if I tell some hot girl at the bar that I flew that plane like Tom Cruise, am I guilty of being a gigantic d-bag, or am I a felon?

Depends on if you left the bar alone or not.   Then on how old the hot girl is...

[SARDOC]

The Stolen Valor Act's problem is that it was written poorly and enforced selectively.
Being struck down by the USSC isn't the end for a law, it just shows where improvements need to be made.

I would think that would depend on exactly how they go about doing it, whether on general principles or on technicalities that could be fixed by Congress.

Agreed.  The Law even if they completely retooled the law...the underlying intent or "spirit of the Law" is still the same and that seems to be what was thrown out.

[Thrashed]

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Sorry, I think freedom of speech comes before some liar with a medal. Americans have a right to lie. Lets not make more laws or lose more freedom. We don't need this law, we just need vets with baseball bats to re-educate the individuals. Seriously, all you need to do is "out" these people and disgrace them. They will get what they deserve in the end.

[NCRblues]

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Sorry, I think freedom of speech comes before some liar with a medal. Americans have a right to lie. Lets not make more laws or lose more freedom. We don't need this law, we just need vets with baseball bats to re-educate the individuals. Seriously, all you need to do is "out" these people and disgrace them. They will get what they deserve in the end.

Uh huh....ya.. And the those "vets with baseball bats" get charged with "assault with a deadly weapon"... that's definitely the way to go (sarcasm warning)

[FlyTiger77]

This case was argued yesterday before the Supreme Court. News accounts seem to imply that the Court sounded as if it were leaning toward upholding the law.

It was sort of funny that the defense attorney didn't try very hard not to throw his client under the bus. (The defense seemed to be: "Yes, my client is a bald-faced liar, but lying is protected by the Constitution.")

We will know in a few months what the law of the land will be.

I have been going back and forth on what I think about this and I think I come down very slightly on the "Free Speech" side.

[Major Lord]

How do you think SCOTUS would rule if the case concerned persons falsely representing themselves as lawyers, versus MOH recipients? My suggestion is that we create a law that allows Military Court's Martial original jurisdiction in cases of military false personation or awards. Let them face the UCMJ. Failing that, we could send them to Iran to face a Sharia Court......

Major Lord

[ColonelJack]

I find myself in agreement with those who say that lying is morally wrong, but unless it is done to acquire tangible items (money, benefits, etc.) that the liar is otherwise not entitled to, it's not a crime.  What troubles me about the Stolen Valor act is the connection between lying about one's service and criminal behavior, where - as has been stated by others - lying about height, weight, income, employment, etc., is not considered criminal behavior (unless fraud is also involved - but that makes it a different case anyway).

I fear that singling out this particular form of dishonesty as criminal will lead to a rather slippery slope that could, theoretically, endanger First Amendment rights across the board.

My two cents, adjusted for inflation ...

Jack

[JeffDG]

I find myself in agreement with those who say that lying is morally wrong, but unless it is done to acquire tangible items (money, benefits, etc.) that the liar is otherwise not entitled to, it's not a crime.  What troubles me about the Stolen Valor act is the connection between lying about one's service and criminal behavior, where - as has been stated by others - lying about height, weight, income, employment, etc., is not considered criminal behavior (unless fraud is also involved - but that makes it a different case anyway).

I fear that singling out this particular form of dishonesty as criminal will lead to a rather slippery slope that could, theoretically, endanger First Amendment rights across the board.

My two cents, adjusted for inflation ...

Jack

The 1st Amendment already has plenty of exceptions.  False statements of fact are not protected speech under the 1st Amendment, else all slander, libel and defamation law would be unconstitutional.

It's also a crime to lie to any federal employee who is investigating anything:

18 USC 1001
Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

Note that doesn't say "and" fraudulently, it's an or...so false, fictitious or fraudulent statements will bring you within the reach of this section.

[FlyTiger77]

I think that the fear of the slippery slope would keep me on the "Free Speech" side. Not everything that is reprehensible should necessarily be made illegal. We have already sacrificed a great deal of freedom on the twin altars of Political Correctness and Safety.

If the Supreme Court upholds this law, will we next make it illegal to claim to have been a FDNY firefighter during the attacks of 11 Sep 01? What about lying about receiving law enforcement valor awards?

A cottage industry as sprung up fighting the Stolen Valor liars with facts often obtained under the FOIA. They do good work and their website is worth looking at: http://www.pownetwork.org/ Perhaps the appropriate remedy for false speech is more speech. The public refutation of the false claims by facts and documents can go a long way in neutering these people and their false claims.

In Iraq, we had a contractor who worked for us that made it onto the radar screen of the POW Network and their Hall of Shame. Among other things, he claimed to have been an SF/Ranger sniper who retired after 10 years as a MSG/1SG. The truth was that he enlisted as a PVT (E-1) and reached his apogee at SGT (E-5) prior to being reduced to PVT (E-1) and leaving the Army the same rank he entered 10 years earlier.

[Major Lord]

This is not really a First Amendment issue, since contrary to the views of our less than strict constructionist judges, The 1st Amendment was designed to prevent Congress ( and later the states) from suppressing political speech. Impersonation in my view is not speech, but I don't have the special gift that only lawyers seem to have to find the first 1st Amendment protects Kiddie Porn publishers, but not political action committees.  (remember, its 99% of lawyers who give the others a bad name) As a helpful reminder:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First, most Churches are Franchises of the Federal and/or State Government. They (churches) agree to remain silent on political issues to retain their 501-C (3) status. The Government effectively owns these Churches, and the Churches are allowed to operate them as a franchise within narrow parameters. FYI, Congress passed that law, gutting the First Amendment. Christians are actively arrested for praying in front of the White House. Go and watch any sunny weekend.

Government requires permits and permissions for parades and public assemblies. ( unless you are an "occupy" group) and continue to attempt to limit the right of the press ( and media collectively ) The McCaine Feingold Bill ( overturned) is a good example of Government suppressing the right of free political speech. Of course, Govt will fight to the death (well, our deaths, not so much theirs) to fund "artists" who submerge Crucifixes in jars of Urine as protected speech. I would characterize that as "Congress Making a Law", but that's just me.

This leaves only the right to petition the Government for Redress. Not one Federal  court in the United States of America has allowed any person to petition the Government for documentation of presidential eligibility, on the basis of standing, taking the position that no citizen has the legal right to ask the Government if what they are doing is legal. The freedom of Information act is essentially suspended. Our common law rights to Quo warrento petitions are gone.

First Amendment? Man, its D.O.A. Other than the part about not having to quarter troops in our homes, the Bill of Rights is as, Mr. Clinton used to say, "no longer Operative".

Major Lord

[NCRblues]

I have long been skeptical of sites like the one linked (not all of it, just some).

Many times I have seen real veterans get torn apart on those sites simply for having their photo appear in the local paper, then someone decides they do not believe the awards and starts blasting them and demanding information.

I have no problem calling someone out claiming to have 5 bronze stars and 5 silver stars and the M.O.H and blah blah blah, but I start to have a problem when random people start questioning EVERY veteran that wears ANY award or ribbons. There has to be a line someplace...

To be flat out honest, I no longer attend veteran's days with AD ribbons on anymore, nor do I place them on my CAP uniform anymore. It's become a major hassle that is simply not worth it for me, even though my commander has both a copy of dd-214 and dd-215's.

Since the Iraq and Afghan wars started to slow down/come to an end, the (what I call ) "witch hunt" of fake veterans has ramped up tenfold. Sometimes for the good, other well....not so much.

In the local media just this past year, they attacked a man who said he was in the Army and served in Iraq and was wounded at a local veterans day ceremony. The media proceeded to file a FOIA request for his dd-214 and when the army told them the records had been "misplaced" they thought they had found a big faker. So they covered this man for days on end with camera crews at his work and home and at his 16 year old daughter's High school school. Veterans rights groups showed up to his house, held protest and demonstrations. The FBI was called in because the man received death threats. Then....almost 3 weeks later, the Army (and I guess VA records?) found his things... turns out the man was real, and in fact had the bronze star along with the purple heart. Too little to late huh?

[jimmydeanno]

15 Trillion in debt, no budget passed in years, unemployment at 8%+, millions losing their homes, average household net worth decreasing dramatically, and people's pressing issue is whether or not some crazy person is telling fake war stories.

Someone who is trying to defraud the government somehow to get benefits is already illegal.  This reminds me of the mayor of the city next door trying to pass a law to make the wearing of "pajama jeans" illegal because some dude was wearing them below his butt.  Indecent exposure is already illegal, making that particular item illegal isn't going to make any difference.