Stolen Valor Act deemed unconstintutional by Federal Judges

[Captain Jin]

This is disheartening to me. Source.

DENVER -- A law that makes it illegal to lie about being a war hero is unconstitutional because it violates free speech, a federal judge ruled Friday as he dismissed a case against a Colorado man who claimed he received two military medals.
Rick Glen Strandlof claimed he was an ex-Marine who was wounded in Iraq and received the Purple Heart and Silver Star, but the military had no record he ever served. He was charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to falsely claim to have won a military medal.
U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn dismissed the case and said the law is unconstitutional, ruling the government did not show it has a compelling reason to restrict that type of statement.

The law can punish a person up to one year for doing this. For instance, it's illegal to wear the Medal of Honor if you have not earned it. However, in this day and age such things are becoming increasingly unconstitutional. It's so absurd that such a distasteful and deplorable act such as representing yourself as a war hero can be covered under 1st Ammendment rights. This is not a matter of Freedom of Speech, it's a matter of someone now being allowed to conduct fraud and it's a matter of defamation for those who really served and earned these awards. As the article details, when frauds are exposed the public becomes more suspicious of those who legitimately earned their medals. Not only that, but there have been cases in the past where men have posed as Medal of Honor recipients, or other high level awards such as Navy Cross or Distinguished Service Crosses and have actually been invited to speak to people and organizations. There was even a case a few years back of a man finally shown to be a fraud that was claiming to be a retired Brigadier General in the Marines, a veteran of fighting the Pacific and a Navy Cross and Medal of Honor. He had been doing tours and speeches for years before a Marine in the audience noticed he was doing suspicious non-Marine things like wearing a cover in doors, saluting without a cover, and so on. It was looked into and they discovered the man was no officer, he had served for something like a few months before being separated from the Marine Corps... as a Private. Yet to publicly pretend to be an MOH recipient, a hero, to have earned a medal that dozens upon dozens of men have been awarded posthumously is a matter of freedom of speech?

The ACLU says they don't support this man's actions, but challenge the spirit of the law. So we can challenge the spirit of the law and in doing so allow indecent, deplorable acts take place that dishonor the memory of those who have fallen in the line of duty serving their country and their comrades. This is just sad and pathetic. Nothing is sacred anymore.

[gsoxx]

It's disgusting but lying is not a crime per se (Thank god.). But if these people are making money out of it or gain benefits it could still be illegal (fraud for example). I can imagine that it would be easy to sue the socks of this so called Brigadier General of the Marines.

[Burnum]

The law can punish a person up to one year for doing this. For instance, it's illegal to wear the Medal of Honor if you have not earned it. However, in this day and age such things are becoming increasingly unconstitutional. It's so absurd that such a distasteful and deplorable act such as representing yourself as a war hero can be covered under 1st Amendment rights.

It might be an y thing to do, but it's still freedom of speech.

. This is not a matter of Freedom of Speech

Yes, it is.

it's a matter of someone now being allowed to conduct fraud

It's not fraud unless somebody is deliberately harmed in the process, or in other cases monetary damages must occur. You've got to argue that a MOH recipient is damaged financially for it to be fraud. This is of course assuming the legal definitions of fraud are radically different in Australia and USA.

Not only that, but there have been cases in the past where men have posed as Medal of Honor recipients, or other high level awards such as Navy Cross or Distinguished Service Crosses and have actually been invited to speak to people and organizations.

That is a of a thing to do, but unless he received money for it, it shouldn't be crime.

So we can challenge the spirit of the law and in doing so allow indecent, deplorable acts take place that dishonor the memory of those who have fallen in the line of duty serving their country and their comrades.

Allowing to someone falsely claim of being a War Veteran, it's no different then violent racists protest outside Holocaust Memorials, but we still allow it. Why should the Stolen Valor Act be ing sacrosanct, when the USA allows far more disgusting behavior?

[mrmouth]

It might be an y thing to do, but it's still freedom of speech.

I cannot see how that is freedom of speech. It is an act, involving a medal who are not allowed to own, let alone wear.

[Gromovnik]

I cannot see how that is freedom of speech. It is an act, involving a medal who are not allowed to own, let alone wear.

maybe the guy bought it?

[Ciabhán]

maybe the guy bought it?

Considering it's illegal to sell, buy, or wear if you aren't a real recipient that doesn't make a difference.

[Genius of the Restoration]

I cannot see how that is freedom of speech. It is an act, involving a medal who are not allowed to own, let alone wear.

I think Burnum was referring to the last sentence he quoted.

I think what I find more disheartening is the fact people felt an Act had to be passed for this. If people find out you lied they'll think you were a tool, you don't need to imprison them for it. Surely there are more pressing matters to attend to...

The popular Australian comedy team the Chaser summed it up nicely a couple of weeks ago. Skip to about 5.09. Not an exact analogy, but it's funny.


This seems like a vote grabbing stunt to be honest. I'm not disrespecting, it just seems a stupid thing to legislate.

[MrMofo]

Yeah, essentially the guy is a douchebag, but the law can't punish him for being a douchebag.

We all know douchebags like this guy who make up lies to feel important, but in this case the douchebag is concocting lies that American Nationalists don't like.

[Simon Cashmere]

I think if it goes all the way upstairs, it will get upheld - the act that is.

The reason is, you cant pretend to be a fireman, a paramedic or a police officer and say that is 'free speech'. It clearly isn't. The same one would assume, to pretend to be a service person. Although I guess lying about being a 'former' service personnel may be the distinction that's able to be drawn

[removeduser_487563287433]

lol would take out a fair few people on this forum I suspect.

@ Simon

You've missed the difference. Showing up at a road accident, and claiming to be a doctor, then digging around in somebody's guts? Illegal. Saying your a doctor in a random situation? Fine. Claiming you are a pilot and trying to fly a Boeing Airbus? Not cool? A three year old boy putting on a Thunderbirds hat, holding his arms up and making a propeller noise? Not illegal.

[Captain Jin]

lol would take out a fair few people on this forum I suspect.

@ Simon

You've missed the difference. Showing up at a road accident, and claiming to be a doctor, then digging around in somebody's guts? Illegal. Saying your a doctor in a random situation? Fine. Claiming you are a pilot and trying to fly a Boeing Airbus? Not cool? A three year old boy putting on a Thunderbirds hat, holding his arms up and making a propeller noise? Not illegal.

It's illegal to put on a police officers uniform, however, and pretend to be a police officer. Even if you're not, say, giving people tickets and such. You can't pretend to be a cop. But for some reason, a man can stand around at the airport in a uniform and get all the at-a-boys from other people, or take advantage of people's support of the troops and the like. Hell, I saw a guy dressed in his dress blues coming out of a bar in Vegas and my friend, a silver star and purple heart recipient, went up to the guy and started asking him questions about the medals. It was quite clear the man had absolutely no idea wtf he was talking about and was quite obviously an impersonator/fraud trying to solicit attention from people.

It's clearly different for people who have never worn the uniform, or known people that have died serving. Do I think some jerk off should go to jail for a year because of it? No, but there should be hefty fines or something dissuade such a thing.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Again, you miss the point. You fail to see the difference between putting on a police uniform and then actually impersonating a police officer. Otherwise there'd be a hell of a lot of strippers in jail.

[Captain Jin]

Again, you miss the point. You fail to see the difference between putting on a police uniform and then actually impersonating a police officer. Otherwise there'd be a hell of a lot of strippers in jail.

Mmmm no. You're making comparisons that simply don't apply. There is a distinct difference between a stripper wearing a uniform and ripping it off and a man that puts on the full regalia of his local police department and walks the streets. If a police officer walked up to that man and recognized him as a fake he would almost certainly be held accountable to some degree. A stripper momentarily wearing a costume as a part of an act is wholly different. Likewise, I don't take issue with people wearing camoflage utilities when playing airsoft, paintball or going to a costume party. Don't be silly.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Mmmm no. You're making comparisons that simply don't apply. There is a distinct difference between a stripper wearing a uniform and ripping it off and a man that puts on the full regalia of his local police department and walks the streets. If a police officer walked up to that man and recognized him as a fake he would almost certainly be held accountable to some degree. A stripper momentarily wearing a costume as a part of an act is wholly different. Likewise, I don't take issue with people wearing camoflage utilities when playing airsoft, paintball or going to a costume party. Don't be silly.

Yes and this isn't a law against impersonation, it's a law against what you can say - and frankly there couldn't be anything that was quite more obviously unconstitutional.

[Katsumoto]

But a lot of these guys aren't simply putting on military uniforms or medals, they're actively saying that they served and received those medals during their service. That is impersonation, not just dressing up.

EDIT: Jin beat me to it.

[Yorkshireman]

Its not illegal in the UK, only to impersonate a serving soldier/airman etc, I don't think its a major problem. But it reminded me of this guy that was in the news last year in England.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...14-months.html



If he'd have just pretended to have been in the Royal Corp of Transport he would have stayed under the radar but instead he wore an SAS beret and had awarded himself the Military Cross/Military Medal/Distinguished Service Medal amongst others.

He had more bogus medals than Idi Amin.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

I can't see how pretending to be a soldier should be illegal.
Pretending to be a police-man is one thing as they are a symbol of authority, keepers of the peace and so on.
When a police man walks the street in his/her uniform society is expecting them to uphold certain things and it's their responsibility to do so.
A soldier however is not.
A soldier walking down the street in his uniform is still just a civilian in a different outfit, a police man is not.

[Captain Jin]

I can't see how pretending to be a soldier should be illegal.
Pretending to be a police-man is one thing as they are a symbol of authority, keepers of the peace and so on.
When a police man walks the street in his/her uniform society is expecting them to uphold certain things and it's their responsibility to do so.
A soldier however is not.
A soldier walking down the street in his uniform is still just a civilian in a different outfit, a police man is not.

That's not true. A soldier, Marine, sailor, airmen etc is expected to present an example as well. If you see myself and another Marine ruthlessly beat people up publicly and we are in uniform that will effect your opinion of the service we come from. That's not the case if I'm just some civilian off the street.

Yes and this isn't a law against impersonation, it's a law against what you can say - and frankly there couldn't be anything that was quite more obviously unconstitutional.

Wrong again, it is not a law against what you can say. It's a law against impersonation. It is a law against wearing medals that were awarded to men and women in the service.

Under the act, it is illegal for unauthorized persons to wear, buy, sell, barter, trade or manufacture "any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces." In the 18 months after the act was enacted, the Chicago Tribune estimates 20 prosecutions. The number is increasing as awareness about the law spreads.

Another situation was brought up earlier this y ear in Denver because a man was being charged as impersonating a Marine Captain and stating he had a purple heart and a silver star and was soliciting money from people to go to his Veterans organization. Even then people were questiong in the constitutionality of the act.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

That's not true. A soldier, Marine, sailor, airmen etc is expected to present an example as well. If you see myself and another Marine ruthlessly beat people up publicly and we are in uniform that will effect your opinion of the service we come from. That's not the case if I'm just some civilian off the street.

If a civilian beats up people, it effects my opinion of that civilian.
So no, a soldier on the street is just a civilian in a special outfit, no more, no less.

Another situation was brought up earlier this y ear in Denver because a man was being charged as impersonating a Marine Captain and stating he had a purple heart and a silver star and was soliciting money from people to go to his Veterans organization. Even then people were questiong in the constitutionality of the act.

Well considering priests can get away with things like that....
And is there several veteran organizations ?
If that is so maybe crack down on those to form one single organization would stop people from doing that, just a thought .

[Captain Jin]

If a civilian beats up people, it effects my opinion of that civilian.
So no, a soldier on the street is just a civilian in a special outfit, no more, no less.

I'd call bs on that but I'm not too familiar with your posting in this area of the board. Most people see an act committed by a person associated with a group and attach negative feelings toward the group they are associated with. You can't deny that, it's constant on this board.

Well considering priests can get away with things like that....
And is there several veteran organizations ?
If that is so maybe crack down on those to form one single organization would stop people from doing that, just a thought .

What do priest have to do with it? If people want to donate money to the church that's their concern whether you think it's a farce or not. As far as several veterans organizations, yes there are, why in the hell should the government make it so that there is only one because there are frauds out there? What sense is that? This is the typical sort of banter this is just stupid, punish the legitimate to make it easier on those that are committing the fraud.