View Full Version : Stolen Valor Act ruled unconstitutional
variablebinary
07-16-10, 17:32
The integrity and reputation of those that serve this country need to be protected from bottom feeding pieces of shit that want to freeload.
Judge: Law penalizing fake heroes unconstitutional
By DAN ELLIOTT (AP) – 42 minutes ago
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.
A spokesman for the U.S. attorney in Denver said prosecutors are reviewing the decision and haven't decided whether to appeal. The spokesman said that decision would be made by the U.S. Justice Department in Washington and prosecutors in Denver.
Strandlof's lawyer, Bob Pepin, said he hadn't spoken to Strandlof since the ruling was issued. Pepin said he would advise Strandlof not to comment publicly because the case might be appealed.
"Obviously, we think this is the right decision, or we wouldn't have been making the objections to the statute to begin with," he said. Pepin said Strandlof has been living in a halfway house in Denver while his case is in the courts.
The law has also been challenged in California and in a case now before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Denver attorney Christopher P. Beall, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, said the Stolen Valor Act is fatally flawed because it doesn't require prosecutors to show anyone was harmed or defamed by the lie.
"The government position was that any speech that's false is not protected by the First Amendment. That proposition is very dangerous," Beall said.
"It puts the government in a much more powerful position to prosecute people for speaking out on things they believe to be true but turn out not to be true," he said.
Beall said the ACLU was not defending the actions Strandlof is accused of, but took issue with the principle behind the law.
Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., who sponsored the Stolen Valor Act in the House, predicted the decision will be overturned on appeal.
"This is an issue of fraud plain and simple," Salazar said in a written release. "The individuals who violate this law are those who knowingly portray themselves as pillars of the community for personal and monetary gain."
Pam Sterner, who as a college student wrote a policy analysis that became the basis of Salazar's bill, said the issue isn't free speech but misrepresentation. Sterner, a former Coloradan who now lives in Virginia, said authentic medal winners' credibility suffers when impostors are exposed because the public becomes suspicious of even true stories of heroism.
Beall said the ACLU was not defending the actions Strandlof is accused of, but took issue with the principle behind the law.
I'm all for classifying the ACLU as a hate group. Not a fan.
I get what the judge is trying to say, but does this make impersonation of an officer perfectly legal? It is after all freedom of speech right?
rickrock305
07-16-10, 17:42
hmmm, thats a rough one. i can see both sides of the story.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-16-10, 22:54
So, I'm a judge, yeah. I'm a super-district judge, sure. And I'm ruling it is constitutional.
Why not if we are just making stuff up now.
dookie1481
07-16-10, 23:22
I get what the judge is trying to say, but does this make impersonation of an officer perfectly legal? It is after all freedom of speech right?
I would assume it's different because this is usually done in concert with, or in order to commit a crime. That said, if no crime is committed, I don't see the difference.
Jay
ChicagoTex
07-17-10, 00:30
This is bizarre to me, as I don't see it as a first amendment issue. I see it, instead, as a fraud issue.
People who lie about military service do so to garner undeserved fame, credibility, and status, which they then leverage into things like getting better jobs than they deserve or wasting taxpayer time and money speaking at schools or parades or similar things about their non-existent "experiences".
In doing so they have comitted what, for all intents and purposes, is fraud.
Well, I haven't been able to get a copy of the opinion yet, so I can't really comment on what the judges reasoning was. If I had to guess, it would be that he was unable to find any precedent from any jurisdiction holding that the protection of military awards qualified as a compelling government interest sufficient to justify a content-based regulation of pure speech. This is because a law that imposes a content-based restriction on pure speech generally is subjected to strict scrutiny and cannot stand unless it is narrowly tailed to serve a compelling government interest. (Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312)
Believe it or not, (if I am correct in my guess) this is the outcome that you would want. It is a stance against government intrusion into the private lives of individuals. That is because simply put, for the government to criminalize pure speech on the basis of its content (in other words, to restrict what is being said, not the time or manner) they better have a damn good articulate-able reason for doing it. Just saying 'because we said so' or 'it makes me mad' isn't good enough.
To pass muster, 18 USC 704 (b) & (d) has to both be 1. narrowly tailored, and 2. serve a compelling government interest. Well, I think it passes test 1, because it is pretty narrowly defined. However, test 2 is a bit more vague and requires analysis. Does the government have a compelling interest in protecting military medals an decorations? If so, what is it? Who or what would be harmed if someone pretended to have earned a medal, and does that harm outweigh the limiting of free speech? Free speech is taken very seriously, and limited only in the most specific instances.
At any rate, here is the text of 18 USC § 704 (b), False Claims About Receipt of Military Decorations or Medals; and of 18 USC § 704 (d), Enhanced Penalty for Offenses Involving Certain Other Medals, which are the crimes that the defendant was charged with:
18 USC § 704 (b)
Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both. "
18 USC § 704 (d)
If a decoration or medal involved in an offense described in subsection (a) or (b) is a distinguished-service cross awarded under section 3742 of title 10, a Navy cross awarded under section 6242 of title 10, an Air Force cross awarded under section 8742 of section 10, a silver star awarded under section 3746, 6244, or 8746 of title 10, a Purple Heart awarded under section 1129 of title 10, or any replacement or duplicate medal for such medal as authorized by law, in lieu of the punishment provided in the applicable subsection, the offender shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
I will point out that that the statue is written in such a way that someone who was in the service and actually earned a Bronze Star that decided to go around and tell people he earned a Silver Star instead is equally guilty and punishable as someone who never served who claimed to have earned a Silver Star. Put another way, if anyone here knows an ex solider who took it upon himself to inflate his ribbons with ones he did not earn, they are guilty of doing the same thing with which the defendant in this case was charged with.
I place emphasis on this point because there seems to be some confusion as to what exactly the alleged crime here was. The defendant wasn't charged with pretending to be a Marine or a Iraq war vet; he was charged with asserting that he earned medals he did not, specifically a Purple Heart and a Silver Star according to the article. Pretending to be a war vet is despicable, but it isn't illegal. Pretending to be a recipient of military awards however, is. Or was, per the ruling in this case.
it's the right decision. you can't make lying illegal, even for what seems like a good cause. it's a sin, but it's not a crime unless you're under oath.
as to impersonating an officer- no law prohibiting people from claiming to be police officers can be any more legal than stolen valor. i dont know how it's worded in other states, but in Oregon, for instance, the ORS spells out that the crime of Impersonation requires the person use the impersonation as leverage. they have to be claiming to be acting under the color of law. wearing a uniform and waving at people isn't enough- you'd have to detain someone, affect an arrest, write a ticket, etc, for the law to kick in. likewise, telling somebody in a bar, through the course of conversation, that you're a cop, and you're not, isn't illegal.
it's the right decision. you can't make lying illegal, even for what seems like a good cause. it's a sin, but it's not a crime unless you're under oath.
as to impersonating an officer- no law prohibiting people from claiming to be police officers can be any more legal than stolen valor. i dont know how it's worded in other states, but in Oregon, for instance, the ORS spells out that the crime of Impersonation requires the person use the impersonation as leverage. they have to be claiming to be acting under the color of law. wearing a uniform and waving at people isn't enough- you'd have to detain someone, affect an arrest, write a ticket, etc, for the law to kick in. likewise, telling somebody in a bar, through the course of conversation, that you're a cop, and you're not, isn't illegal.
If I drove around in a crown vic with police decals and lights I'm pretty sure I'd get into some shit :p I know in some states I can have emergency lights on a vehicle as long as they're not in use.
Either way, these guys should just get their asses sued in civil than.
Belmont31R
07-17-10, 01:12
it's the right decision. you can't make lying illegal, even for what seems like a good cause. it's a sin, but it's not a crime unless you're under oath.
as to impersonating an officer- no law prohibiting people from claiming to be police officers can be any more legal than stolen valor. i dont know how it's worded in other states, but in Oregon, for instance, the ORS spells out that the crime of Impersonation requires the person use the impersonation as leverage. they have to be claiming to be acting under the color of law. wearing a uniform and waving at people isn't enough- you'd have to detain someone, affect an arrest, write a ticket, etc, for the law to kick in. likewise, telling somebody in a bar, through the course of conversation, that you're a cop, and you're not, isn't illegal.
Thats what I thought too. You'd have to lie along with trying to get something out of it. Cop impersonators pulling women over at night to rape them? Thats not same the thing as dressing up in a uniform, and walking around a party telling people you are johny law.
RE Valor Act it should only be criminal to claim a military status you didn't earn to receive something due to a false claim. I don't care if people want to walk around and wear a chest full of medals or tell people in casual conversation you did X and Y.
Fraud is illegal.
Someone is not prosecuted under this law unless their claims become public somehow. Ie, someone has to know about it. If the person making the claims decides to make it public, they are doing so in order to gain status, favor, fame, or other intangible or perhaps tangible benefits. Therefore they do it to be able to get something from it. Hence it is fraud. IANAL and so this train of thought would have to be fleshed out some, but I fail to see logically how it is not fraudulent to make the claims as the only reason for doing so would be to try and impress someone, or enlarge your status, etc. Intangible benefits are sought.
Does this make sense?
thopkins22
07-17-10, 01:45
Fraud is illegal.
Fraud is and should be illegal. Defraud your employer like the guy at A&M did and get prosecuted for it.
But you begin treading dangerously into, "We can't say exactly what exact lie will get you arrested, we'll know it when we hear it" territory.
If you're going after those who steal valor for fraud...when do you go after the guy at the bar telling girls that he's got an 18" penis? For the $30,000 millionaires that are "stealing status?"
I maintain that there should be no laws...there just shouldn't be any repercussions for the real deal guys who beat your ass when they catch you in your lies.
Fraud is and should be illegal. Defraud your employer like the guy at A&M did and get prosecuted for it.
But you begin treading dangerously into, "We can't say exactly what exact lie will get you arrested, we'll know it when we hear it" territory.
If you're going after those who steal valor for fraud...when do you go after the guy at the bar telling girls that he's got an 18" penis? For the $30,000 millionaires that are "stealing status?"
That is irrelevant. They can choose what sort of fraud they want to target. There is no requirement that they make all fraud equal or target all forms of fraud.
I maintain that there should be no laws...there just shouldn't be any repercussions for the real deal guys who beat your ass when they catch you in your lies.
I have no problem with that either :D
In retrospect it would have been far more cost effective and a bit more of a deterrent to send a marine to beat the phony up, then pardon the marine. The way I look at it, money is tight and the marine is already on the clock.
I'm all for classifying the ACLU as a hate group. Not a fan.
Since the ACLU does not treat all rights the same, they too are a fraud.
ThirdWatcher
07-17-10, 06:52
Leave LE out of this one, please.
Does anyone really think the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to cover this kinda BS? It just ain't getting any smarter in this country.
In retrospect it would have been far more cost effective and a bit more of a deterrent to send a marine to beat the phony up, then pardon the marine. The way I look at it, money is tight and the marine is already on the clock.
Or maybe some of those gentleman who guard the Tomb of The Unknown Soldier...
Does anyone really think the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to cover this kinda BS? It just ain't getting any smarter in this country.
yep... i do. i think they intended it to ensure a man could say whatever he wanted, so long as his words didn't maliciously result in immediate harm to another (such as screaming fire in a movie theater when there's no fire).
do you really think the Founding Fathers intended us to pick and chose what was covered by the First?
Dirk Williams
07-17-10, 09:57
Guys the feds have far more important work to do the chase these creaton's around. They need and old fashion behind the latrine chat with an ex DI in my mind.
I feel sorry for these turds they have no sense of value or moral compass.
Even they have to look in the mirror at least once a week. What do you think they see, a hero, or a ****ing coward.
D Williams
So I guess I can trot around with fake FBI credentials and that is ok now....
Eugene Volokh (UCLA Law Professor) who many of you may know through his website has some good commentary on this:
http://volokh.com/2010/07/16/stolen-valor-act-held-unconstitutional
I tend to agree with him on this (and many other things, too). I agree that the courts must look at laws like this very carefully with regard to 1st Amendment issues. What if I wear a Halloween costume with a medal on it? Clearly I'm not actually trying to claim I won the medal.
But if, given all of the facts and circumstances, I am trying to actually claim that I received an award when I did not, then that is problematic. As Prof. Volokh says, the court is drawing some awfully thin lines between "fraud" where someone is actually harmed and "attempted fraud" where I lie but nobody is harmed.
thopkins22
07-17-10, 23:50
Leave LE out of this one, please.
Does anyone really think the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to cover this kinda BS? It just ain't getting any smarter in this country.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."Congress shall make no law," seems about as clear as anything can possibly be. Freedom of speech isn't there for you and I. It's there for all the people who's speech you and I find appalling.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.