"Stolen Valor" - the War Against Honor...?

[longeyes]

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/08/ap-military-stolen-valor-act-unconstitutional-again-081710/

Court again strikes down Stolen Valor Act
The Associated Press
Posted : Wednesday Aug 18, 2010 10:02:58 EDT
PASADENA, Calif. — A federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday that people have a right to lie about receiving military medals, the second federal court decision in a month to go against the Stolen Valor Act.

Xavier Alvarez, who falsely claimed in 2007 to have received the Medal of Honor, challenged the law on appeal after he was charged with violating the act, which makes it a crime to falsely claim to have won a military medal.

Alvarez said the act is a violation of free-speech rights.

A panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Alvarez in a 2-1 decision.

The majority said there was no evidence that such lies harm anybody, and there is no compelling reason for the government to ban such lies.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles said it is deciding whether to appeal the ruling.

Another take:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0810/9th_Circuit_finds_a_right_to_lie.html

[roo_ster]

Because LEOs are so much more important than military service members, it is understandable that while the former is illegal, the latter is trivial.

[wmenorr67]

Interesting comments at the end of the article.

Mainly about now they have opened the door to lie about anything, as long as no harm was done.

[TommyGunn]

   The ninth circus strikes AGAIN!  Good grief! LYING is protected by the first amendment!???!??!???!!!?!?!? 

[Perd Hapley]

 

[MicroBalrog]

Mainly about now they have opened the door to lie about anything, as long as no harm was done.

The operative term seems to be as long as no harm was done.

[BrokenPaw]

As abhorrent as it is that some people lie to gain honor and respect they have not earned, having the courts rule that lying is a crime takes us in a direction that we probably don't want to go.

We already have a category of laws that deal with lies that lead to material harm:  "Fraud".

Do we really want the government making the telling of an untruth into a criminal act?  I don't think we do.

The proper way to deal with folks who steal valor is through public censure and debunking; to have laws that limit what those people can say implicitly creates a situation where we are all "under oath" at all times, in a de facto way.  Once the bureaucrats figure out they have that power, any mistake or misstatement we make, about anything at all, will become a potential pretext for criminal investigation.

We don't want to go there.

[longeyes]

As abhorrent as it is that some people lie to gain honor and respect they have not earned, having the courts rule that lying is a crime takes us in a direction that we probably don't want to go.

Agree.  But all the more reason for a regenerative culture of honor and valor in America.

Lying isn't new, but in-your-face, abusive lying by those in power appears to have become a deeply ingrained, even institutionalized element of our culture now.  I'm tempted to say it began with Chappaquiddick, but that too was only a symptom of deeper betrayals.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

one doesn't legislate culture    or at least not here

[Sergeant Bob]

As abhorrent as it is that some people lie to gain honor and respect they have not earned, having the courts rule that lying is a crime takes us in a direction that we probably don't want to go.

We already have a category of laws that deal with lies that lead to material harm:  "Fraud".

Do we really want the government making the telling of an untruth into a criminal act?  I don't think we do.

The proper way to deal with folks who steal valor is through public censure and debunking; to have laws that limit what those people can say implicitly creates a situation where we are all "under oath" at all times, in a de facto way.  Once the bureaucrats figure out they have that power, any mistake or misstatement we make, about anything at all, will become a potential pretext for criminal investigation.

We don't want to go there.

I'm with you on this one. As disgusting as people like that are, people have been making up things about themselves for thousands of years. If the government has the power to jail people for lying about their service history, how long before they try to use the power for people embellishing resume's, etc? Remember, your Social Security Number will never be used for identification purposes.

[longeyes]

No, we can't legislate our way out of this problem, but then I don't really believe we can legislate our way out of any of big issues right now.  It comes back to education and morality, the former which has been largely co-opted and the latter which has been relegated to the "barbarous relic" category.

Although the trend's invidious, the criminalizing of more and more behavior is even more invidious.

[Hawkmoon]

The court blew it.

It has long been held that the 1st amendment protects one's right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater ... but if you do so and there isn't a fire, you face certain repercussions for your misstatement.

Why is the same principle not applied here? Nobody says he can't claim medals he didn't win. The law does not cut out anyone's tongue and prevent then from making such claims. It simple provides for certain sanctions if one advances such claims falsely.

I sincerely hope the Government does appeal, because the 9th Circus (thank you, good turn of phrase) is seriously lacking in jurisprudence on this one.

[Nitrogen]

It's not illegal to be a donkey-hole.

[RoadKingLarry]

So if it is OK to lie when nor harm is doen why is Roger Clemens being charged with lying to congress about steroid use. What harm did it do?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

testifying under oath  lying to impede an investigation? covering for himself?  take your pick

[MicroBalrog]

It has long been held that the 1st amendment protects one's right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater ... but if you do so and there isn't a fire, you face certain repercussions for your misstatement.

I'm not sure you want to be quoting that one.

[MechAg94]

I'm not sure you want to be quoting that one.

why?

[Perd Hapley]

Why is the same principle not applied here? Nobody says he can't claim medals he didn't win. The law does not cut out anyone's tongue and prevent then from making such claims. It simple provides for certain sanctions if one advances such claims falsely.

[MicroBalrog]

why?

It's a ruling that:

1. Has since been thrown out.

2. Argues you have no right to argue against the military draft in wartime.

[RaspberrySurprise]

why?

Not to mention that crying fire in a crowded theatre where there is no such fire is highly likely to cause material harm to others whereas being a lying jackhole with regards to military medals isn't. Yes it's reprehensible and wrong, but not so much with the harming.

[RocketMan]

Not to mention that crying fire in a crowded theatre where there is no such fire is highly likely to cause material harm to others whereas being a lying jackhole with regards to military medals isn't. Yes it's reprehensible and wrong, but not so much with the harming.

Would you say that someone wearing unearned medals to bolster his his image, and thus his chances of election to public office, causes no harm?

[kgbsquirrel]

Would you say that someone wearing unearned medals to bolster his his image, and thus his chances of election to public office, causes no harm?

Or a chance to get hired, or win a contract for his company, etc. all of which have occurred.

Perhaps someone can parse this for me: The court has said it is okay not illegal to lie about receiving military decorations or service (reducing the reputation, character and prestige of the uniformed services apparently isn't considered harm), but is it still fraud to act on such claims to garner any of the above?

ETA: Thanks Nitrogen for catching that.

[Nitrogen]

Or a chance to get hired, or win a contract for his company, etc. all of which have occurred.

Perhaps someone can parse this for me: The court has said it is okay to lie about receiving military decorations or service (reducing the reputation, character and prestige of the uniformed services apparently isn't considered harm), but is it still fraud to act on such claims to garner any of the above?

The court didn't say it was ok; the court doesn't rule on moral issues.
It just ruled it was not a crime.

Libel, Slander and other defamation are also not crimes in most states.  (less than 20 states, last I knew, had criminal defamation statutes)  In most states, Defamation is a tort.

[RaspberrySurprise]

Would you say that someone wearing unearned medals to bolster his his image, and thus his chances of election to public office, causes no harm?

They do cause harm BUT this is also fraud which is already illegal. We don't need to make it double plus illegal.

[MechAg94]

They do cause harm BUT this is also fraud which is already illegal. We don't need to make it double plus illegal.

Just make it double secret probation.