Stolen Valor Act struck down by congress

[IPD]

Didn't see a thread on this, so here's one. I'm rather pissed off today about this.

Congress has essentially ruled that free-speech protects a person who wants to falsely represent himself/herself as a meritorious servicemember. To me, I don't see this any different from impersonating a police officer or other such. Why is impersonating the president on SNL ok (actors are making a profit on it)...but impersonating a police officer isn't?

According to some views, it's because pretending to be something is different than false representation of oneself for profit/gain. In my mind however, I don't see how/when anyone could pretend to have won/earned medals they did not rightfully obtain--and not intend to profit by the action. People don't go around randomly dressed up as cops unless it's halloween (and even then they're careful about it). Anyone who goes around falsely representing himself/herself as a person of valor is someone who intends to profit by the act. Whether it's a free beer, a round of applause, VA benefits...or whatever, there's an intent to gain from the misrepresentation. To me, this eliminates the question of free-speech from the matter.

I'd love to hear thoughts. I'm usually 100% for free speech...but this doesn't seem like a case of free-speech at all. In my mind, this is like sanctioning people yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.

[Valhallaz]

That would be bullshit. I'm all for prison sentences for such behavior.

[Blackmount]

I think its BS. Alot of people work hard for those titles but do not chase the titles themselves, they do a heroic couragous act because its the right thing to do, and money and fame and to gain is the last thing on these peoples minds that gets them those titles.

And for someone such as me who has done squat to be able to claim war hero titles n such. That takes away the signifcane of what they mean and what they r about, not to mention how much of a insult that is.

[j2k4]

John Kerry wants to run for POTUS again?



I agree totally, but Free Speech is FREE SPEECH, and no one (so far as I know) has died because someone lied about serving.

Sad, but there it is.

As an adjunct to this ruling, however, I would say it should be stipulated that kicking the shit out of someone caught in such a lie is not a crime, either.

[NickS VR4]

While I think it absolutely sucks, I do agree that it should be protected by free speech. If that free speech has the potential to cause harm to someone, than it would not be protected. I would assume that impersonating a police officer is a little tricky. If you are just at a bar and say you are an off duty cop, and that is it, I'm not sure how much the courts can do to you. However, most that claim do it to gain trust and benefit some how from that.

If anything, I think just claiming to be a police officer should be protected as well, as long as it does not cause harm or illegal extortion like most people do when they claim this.

[IPD]

so that's it, kevin? death is the discriminating factor which makes a lie protected by free-speech or punishable by the court?

if that's the case, then all the mutherfuckers who got rich of ponzi schemes should walk. just saying.

p.s.

as IF serving in the texas ANG made w. any more of a "legitimate" servicemember than kerry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry%27s_military_service

[ictponder]

I can see all decorated veterans receiving a general mistrust or disrespect due to something like this. If you don't know the guy is a legitimate veteran or not, then just treat all of them as the latter.

I personally can't stand any person that walks around claiming to be a decorated veteran or is dressed like a veteran in hopes of receiving special attention. One thing about being a hero is that you NOT tell anyone. Therefore I ignore most people who are wearing military uniforms/decorations.

Edit: Before calling me a dick, my brother is Army and my father-in-law is a retired marine currently Michigan state trooper and they both have the same outlook as I do.

[Alan92RTTT]

Supreme court not congress.

To start the concept of lieing about military service/awards is not somethign I support.

Keep in mind this ruling is about the result of the application of the "stolden valor act" in the case of Xavier Alvarez.

To quote the latimes

Alvarez's lies "were but a pathetic attempt to gain respect that eluded him," Kennedy said. "The statements do not seem to have been made to secure employment or financial benefits or admission to privileges reserved for those who had earned the medal."
I think that is the key to the issue. NOrmally we'd think that someone would lie about service or metals for gain. In this case it was just about rep and status. And I agree with the court when they say that "the 1st Amendment protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace.".

I think the current track by legislators to make a new law making it a crime to seek a benefit by lying about military service is the way to go.

I detest that people do this. But, I think making it illegal by itself does work given the protections of the 1st amendment. :(

[j2k4]

so that's it, kevin? death is the discriminating factor which makes a lie protected by free-speech or punishable by the court?

if that's the case, then all the mutherfuckers who got rich of ponzi schemes should walk. just saying.

p.s.

as IF serving in the texas ANG made w. any more of a "legitimate" servicemember than kerry.

Don't get pissy with me, Thadd, you know damn well I agree with you, but you KNOW how this shit works, too.

I believe in honorable behavior, but I don't practice the politics of emotion.

[IPD]

Supreme court not congress.

To start the concept of lieing about military service/awards is not somethign I support.

Keep in mind this ruling is about the result of the application of the "stolden valor act" in the case of Xavier Alvarez.

To quote the latimes

I think that is the key to the issue. NOrmally we'd think that someone would lie about service or metals for gain. In this case it was just about rep and status. And I agree with the court when they say that "the 1st Amendment protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace.".

I think the current track by legislators to make a new law making it a crime to seek a benefit by lying about military service is the way to go.

I detest that people do this. But, I think making it illegal by itself does work given the protections of the 1st amendment. :(

I will grant you that, Alan. I would maintain that Alvarez did seek to profit from it--and although it's difficult to establish the ties to him obtaining his employment post--that such employment was at least in part tied to his false claims.

[NickS VR4]

Supreme court not congress.

To start the concept of lieing about military service/awards is not somethign I support.

Keep in mind this ruling is about the result of the application of the "stolden valor act" in the case of Xavier Alvarez.

To quote the latimes

I think that is the key to the issue. NOrmally we'd think that someone would lie about service or metals for gain. In this case it was just about rep and status. And I agree with the court when they say that "the 1st Amendment protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace.".

I think the current track by legislators to make a new law making it a crime to seek a benefit by lying about military service is the way to go.

I detest that people do this. But, I think making it illegal by itself does work given the protections of the 1st amendment. :(

If that is the case, than would it be illegal to lie on your resume for personal gain? As long as no military benefits are sought (which it should be verified anyhow) from places like the VA, than I don't see how this could be made illegal either. I think it would be up to the employer to verify what the person had claimed.

[Alan92RTTT]

Think of its this way.

If I walk around saying "I'm a lawyer" who cares.

If I say "I'm a lawyer" and get you to pay me for legal advice. Thats fraud.


One is free speach, one it illegal. Its really a case of we don't need laws for this.

Its like the guy from AGT that claimed more service/injuries than he had. He failed on the show and now his name is mud. He'll never have a chance at a carear as a muscician because he just trashed his reputation. But, should he go to jail for that too?

[BaadVR4]

Rep and status, in and of themselves, represent a gain. If there were "nothing to gain", Alvarez would never have lied. Just sayin'.

[NickS VR4]

Rep and status, in and of themselves, represent a gain. If there were "nothing to gain", Alvarez would never have lied. Just sayin'.

So does lying, should that be a crime?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[UTRacerX9]

Think of its this way.

If I walk around saying "I'm a lawyer" who cares.

If I say "I'm a lawyer" and get you to pay me for legal advice. Thats fraud.


One is free speach, one it illegal. Its really a case of we don't need laws for this.

Its like the guy from AGT that claimed more service/injuries than he had. He failed on the show and now his name is mud. He'll never have a chance at a carear as a muscician because he just trashed his reputation. But, should he go to jail for that too?

Bingo.

[IPD]

so where's the line on that, alan? what form or amount of compensation must be sufficient for the act of misrepresentation to be criminal? a round of applause? a free drink? someone that sleeps with you? financial kickbacks? a job? VA benefits? where exactly do you draw that line?

i submit that at no time should it be considered "legal" to misrepresent oneself in terms of military service. from my perspective, free-speech ends when the rights of another are infringed upon. that infringement is precisely what happens each time someone misrepresents himself in ways that involve the military--it damages the reputations of those who have served admirably.

to me, it's one thing for a person to fib about being in the military. it's another if that person tries to claim medals/awards not bestowed upon them. the latter cheapen the meaning of those awards/medals for the members who have justly earned them. that is sufficient damage, in my eyes, to invalidate the "freedom of speech" argument.

[NickS VR4]

We are already losing freedoms, speech should not be one of them.

If we can't have such a basic right of saying what we want, even if its a lie, what other rights can we expect to lose.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[BaadVR4]

In any instance of "under oath", lying is just that: CRIMINAL. The technical term is perjury. I submit there are instances in which the technicality of not being under oath does NOT bestow legality on lying for gain. And claiming medals of valor falsely is one of those instances.

If we, as a country, can take Roger Clemens to trial, not once, but twice over something as inconsequential and harmless as lying to Congress about whether or not he used performance enhancing substances, how the HELL do we consider lying about receiving the MEDAL OF HONOR protected "free speech"?


So does lying, should that be a crime?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[IPD]

We are already losing freedoms, speech should not be one of them.

If we can't have such a basic right of saying what we want, even if its a lie, what other rights can we expect to lose.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

we're already not allowed to lie in all instances. like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. you're deluding yourself if you think that we're allowed to lie outside of oath anytime we please.

[NickS VR4]

we're already not allowed to lie in all instances. like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. you're deluding yourself if you think that we're allowed to lie outside of oath anytime we please.

I am very aware of that, and I eluded to that in my first post. Speech that can cause harm to people is not protected. Any speech that incites violence is also not protected.

Lying in general is not in the same category. This type of lie is no different than if I said I owned a Ferrari on this forum or claimed I earned $500k/yr.

Cause really I own a Bugatti Veyron, and I earn $5 million a year.



Shit.... did I just break a law?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[IPD]

you're really not doing harm to veyron/ferrari owners, nor are you really injuring those who make 500k per year--by virtue of what you just said.

by claiming valor, you are ipso facto serving as a representative of our armed forces. you aren't jeopardizing the collective owners of high-dollar sports cars....because there is no grouping there. even more so, you aren't jeopardizing anything with a lie about a car--because you're not going to get free shit from people just because you lie about some bullshit like that (although it might help you score with a bar slut or something).

i see these as quite different because anyone can join the military--just as anyone can buy a super expensive car (if you finance it or something). you can lie about either--and that's really no problem. it's the lie about valor where it crosses the line. false claims of valor cheapen the meaning of it for those who have legitimately laid down their lives (literally) to earn valor.

it's the damage to the prestige and esteem of those who have served honorably that makes the false-pretense illegal, in my mind.

[NickS VR4]

So do civilian awards count? What if I claimed the presidential medal of freedom?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[BaadVR4]

It is unlikely we will get much further than "agree to disagree". We have different perspectives of the meaning of valor. And we have very different perspectives of how a false claim of having earned the Medal of Honor harms an entire class of people.

I served 21 1/2 years in the Navy. I never earned a medal for personal valor. I have known some who have. The very essence of their acts were total self sacrifice. Someone else lived because they chose to die for him/her. Someone else they might not even have known.

To lie about personal medals awarded for valor is exactly the opposite; it is an act of cowardly total self absorption. Claiming to be a hero when you are not harms everyone who has ever acted truly heroically. And, since it bestows rep and status, it is likely to result in the liar being hired/promoted/etc/etc/etc ahead of someone who remains honest.

We understand each others' position and agree each of us has the right to speak our position. Now suppose you and I are both under consideration for a position with significantly more salary/benefits/prestige/etc. Our superiors ask us to submit a letter outlining why we should be selected. In my letter, I claim to have been awarded several military and civil medals for a variety of heroic acts. The claims are all false, but undetected as false. If discovered, like the AGT case, I will likely be fired in disgrace and subject to a variety of social/employment sanctions. But, if undetected, I enjoy the fruits of my lies. Your position is my lies are protected free speech and "no harm/no foul" since you did not lose your job, only a POSSIBLE promotion. My position is my lies have harmed you a great deal, both personally and financially, to the extent that civil and criminal sanctions are not just warranted but required. I don't disagree with your right to think/speak/act however you wish. I disagree you have the right to cause me harm in pursuit of whatever you want to do. And I disagree on what constitutes "harm".




So do civilian awards count? What if I claimed the presidential medal of freedom?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[NickS VR4]

And I believe that is no different than lying on a resume. It is up to the employer to verify these claims. Perhaps a better system for individuals to verify awards like this. A public online registry maybe in which you can call someone out on their false claims. To me that would be the best solution. One that anyone can access with a smartphone and a name.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2