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_...ce_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ke...litary_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.