M14 Forum

texfed

I didn't know where to post this, but I figured everyone here would be interested. I'm only the messenger , so don't shoot me. I think we need to write our congressmen to re write this bill!

U.S. District Court Held Unconstitutional Act That Makes It A Crime To Lie About Being A War Hero by Shaw, Bransford & Roth, P.C.
July 22, 2010

The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado recently held that a statute, the Stolen Valor Act, 18 U.S.C. § 704(b), which makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail for lying about having been awarded military decorations or medals, is unconstitutional because it violates the right to free speech. The District Court dismissed the case against the defendant and struck down the statute as unconstitutional because the restriction on speech was not narrowly tailored by the government to serve a compelling interest.

The defendant in this case was charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act after he lied that he was a wounded veteran who had served in Iraq with the Marines and had received a Purple Heart and Silver Star for his military service. The government argued that "defendant's admittedly false statements enjoy no First Amendment significance at all." In analyzing the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act, the District Court relied on a prior U.S. Supreme Court decision, U.S. v. Stevens, in which the Supreme Court considered the First Amendment ramifications of a federal statute criminalizing the creation, sale, or possession of depiction of animal cruelty. In Stevens, the Supreme Court had recognized limited instances of "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem." Fraud is one of these limited classes of speech. However, the District Court found that the Stolen Valor Act did not require that anyone have been actually mislead, defrauded, or deceived by such misrepresentations. Because the Stolen Valor Act criminalizes the mere utterance of the false statement, regardless of whether anyone is harmed by it, the District Court used the strict scrutiny standard to determine whether the Stolen Valor Act violates the First Amendment.

Under the strict scrutiny analysis, the government must establish that the Act is narrowly tailored in restricting speech to serve a compelling government interest. The government argues that the Act "promotes a compelling interest in promoting heroism and sacrifice by our military personnel and, more particularly, that [d]iluting the meaning the meaning or significance of medals of honor, by allowing anyone to claim to possess such decorations, could impact the motivation of soldiers to engage in valorous, and extremely dangerous, behavior on the battlefield." The District Court determined that the government's assertion was "wholly unsubstantiated" to suggest that the heroism of servicemen and women is motivated "by considerations of whether a medal may be awarded" and therefore the Act was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The District Court acknowledged "that there is much irony, to put it gently, in concluding that the core values of our system of governance, which our military men and women serve to defend with their very lives, are here invoked to protect false claims of entitlement to the honors that recognize the most courageous instances of that service."

Therefore, the District Court held that the Stolen Valor Act is facially unconstitutional and did not serve a compelling government interest to restrict speech. Thus, the Act is invalid and violates the First Amendment. The District Court dismissed the case against the defendant.

The case is U.S. v. Strandlof, Criminal Case No. 09-cr-00497-REB, dated July 16, 2010.

mjconnau

It is a crime to impersonate a law enforcement officer. It is a crime to impersonate a doctor. It is a crime to impersonate a lawyer.
How then is it not a crime to impersonate a war hero?

CAVman

There Really Is No Need To Re-Write The LAW(U.S. Code)...YET!
This is Just One U.S. District Court Judge's Decision(Opinion)---There are something like 640 U.S. District Court Judges Total!
From What I Have Read...It is Highly Likely It Will Be Appealed On Up The Ladder...
Of Course I Disagree With This Judge's Ruling Also, But Remember, If His Decision Gets Reversed in the 10th Circuit, or in the U.S. Court of Appeals...It Will Have That Much More Authority Than Before...


CAVman in WYoming

FPeel

Reading this story in the local paper I was dismayed by the ruling. The case should definitely be appealed and failing a favorable ruling by the bench the law should be re-written to protect the honor and dignity of those who truly earned their medals. Those who would disrespect them in order to gain even the most minute reward or consideration should be outed and penalized at every opportunity.

davidgcalderone

Definately an insult to all those that have served. However, if there is a problem with the law, it can be changed, and it will. First, we must wait to see if the decision is overturned.

Time to write you members of the House and Senate, and tell them you want the law corrected as required to pass constitutional requirements.

bd111

That U.S. District Judge invites public contempt for his lifetime appointment. There is NO "First Amendment" value in fraud, whether it's immigration fraud, marketing fraud, resume fraud, academic fraud, or military service fraud. I haven't seen this kind of "sleeping with the enemy" from federal judges or other high U.S. govt officials since the Vietnam days.

art7

Interesting case, and at first blush, I agee with the judge.

I consider it reprehensible to mis-represent yourself as a war hero. However I don't agree that allowing the government one unnecessary inch of limitation of Freedom of Speech is a price worth paying to try and prosecute the pathetic worms who lie about their service.

This is right up there with burning the flag. I don't agree with burning the flag, and I would never do it, but I'll put my a$$ on the line to fight and defend someone else's right to do it, because the alternative is to live in a police state.

Art

bd111

Art, by a vote of 2-1 a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco agreed with your argument yesterday, U.S. v. Alvarez. The gist of it was that the govt hadn't proven that Alvarez's lies about being a Marine and getting a CMOH had harmed anybody (yet). The full court (11 judges) could agree to rehear the case if the govt so petitions and/or the govt could try to get SCOTUS to take it. The dissenting judge relied on SCOTUS decisions that have consistently held there's no First Amendment protection for provably false statements of fact knowingly and willfully made. Anybody wishes to read the opinions, google ninth circuit and click on decisions at the court's web site. Look for 8/17/10 opinions.

Smoky

I think That ruling is a shame , What has this country become?? What a dishonor to all that have served. It may be over turned but to think that some even think the way the court ruled is sickening.
Think one of the reasons I like this form so much is that we are all friends and for the most part feel the same about things like this,

HaroldG

As we all know, the Act was likely passed to address the issue of persons claiming to have been awarded military awards for which they were not entitled, and exploiting their deception for personal gain. As to what I heard in the news lately, Supreme Court agrees to hear arguments about Stolen Valor Act. The Supreme Court will be hearing disputes in the suit of U.S. vs. Alvarez. The free speech protections of the First Amendment may be violated by the Stolen Valor Act. If this is the suit, then the law, intended to defend military awards, might actually be unconstitutional.

bfelts1ak

I am all ok with a re-write of the Stolen Valor Act - If you catch them lying about service, do not prosecute the service member for beating the liar's ass in public.

DukeRustfield

Impersonation is not the same as saying. There is nothing in the world stopping you from going into a bar and telling a woman you're a brain surgeon-cop-lawyer. There are only statues against you trying to take advantage of those positions. Aka fraud.

The freedom of speech protects even "bad" speech. People can say what they want. IF they tried to claim VA benefits or otherwise cash in on something that wasn't true, they should get smacked down. But people can say what they want. It's really disturbing that someone could whisper to themselves they got a purple heart and that would be a criminal act. You don't have to like the speech. In fact, that's the whole point. That's what you vets fought for.

Me, I didn't go to war, because I'm an astronaut, rocket scientist, CIA ninja, and academy award winning documentarian.

CAVman

Have You Been Listening to the Bellamy Brothers ?

http://www.cowboylyrics.com/tabs/bel...ove-10976.html



CAVman in WYoming

Veritas

I'm torn on this issue, I agree with your statement but at the same time anytime some one says "Man there should be a law against that!" about anything the government says "We'd love to help!" and our freedoms are reduced. Over time you end up with a country where you can't build a tree fort for your kid in your own backyard without mountains of paperwork and permission from 5 levels of government.

I think there are some issues like this that are worth drawing a line as to right and wrong but I just want to point out it is a slippery slope and you have to be careful what you wish for.

82nd ABN

I cant imagine that if someone does do it and profits making money they will still get prosecuted. I think its flat out wrong that it was shot down.