View Full Version : Stolen Valor Act - Unconstitutional? CO Court Ruling
Snaquebite
07-16-2010, 13:11
July 16, 2010
It appears that this judge has ruled the SVA unconstitutional. I'm not good with the legal text in this order...
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.116339/gov.uscourts.cod.116339.46.0.pdf
greenberetTFS
07-16-2010, 13:19
This is BS,this judge is really BS,it's a slap in the face to those brave men who have earned their Medals for Valor........... :mad: This sucks big time!.........:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
Something like the SVA could definitly garner enough support for a Constitutional Amendment.
Utah Bob
07-16-2010, 14:57
Something like the SVA could definitly garner enough support for a Constitutional Amendment.
I don't think it will go that far. I expect an appeal and probably a SCOTUS decision unless some reworded legislation can be passed. Who in Congress would be opposed to it these days?
Don't get me started on Strandloff!!:mad:
Source (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/16/fed-judge-rules-law-penalizing-fake-military-heroes-unconstitutional-dismisses/)
Published July 16, 2010
| Associated Press
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 didn't immediately return a call.
The law has also been challenged in California and an a case now before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Oh good. The nutty Ninth.
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.
July 16, 2010
It appears that this judge has ruled the SVA unconstitutional.
Just as a civilian speaking here, this makes me sick!
What a scum-sucking, spineless coward this judge is.
Holly
Utah Bob
07-16-2010, 15:38
Just as a civilian speaking here, this makes me sick!
What a scum-sucking, spineless coward this judge is.
Holly
Well, I don't know if he's a bottom feeding invertebrate without courage or not. He was a Bush appointee.
He acted on point of law.
The language of the SVA may need to be tweaked.
I anticipate a final victory.
My cup is always half full.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. He acted on point of law.
The language may need to be tweaked.
I anticipate a final victory.
Yes, Sir. To clarify, just the thought that posers could not/ would not be busted under the SVA makes me sick!
Thank you Sir,
Holly
Utah Bob
07-16-2010, 15:59
Yes, Sir. To clarify, just the thought that posers could not/ would not be busted under the SVA makes me sick!
Thank you Sir,
Holly
Agree. I anticipate a victory in this eventually. Given public and congressional support these days, I believe it will be corrected.
My canteen cup is always half full.;)
I would suggest new legislation, perhaps titled , "The Blanket Party Act".
Agree. I anticipate a victory in this eventually. Given public and congressional support these days, I believe it will be corrected.
My canteen cup is always half full.;)
I would suggest new legislation, perhaps titled , "The Blanket Party Act".
Agree 100% Sir.
Again, from a civilan standpoint, MHO is the courts really should uphold this Act, as it took a lot of time, effort, and people to get it established, and has been the basis for busting posers who otherwise would get away with claiming the, "blood, sweat, tears, and lives," of those far superior to these dirtbags!
Holly
Green Light
07-16-2010, 17:07
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.
This is the problem: they're arguing damage, we're arguing right and wrong. The left is telling us that there are no actions that are inherently wrong. In a very real sense, people are harmed - it diminishes the value of the award.
It's inherent value is the standard which is applied for its award to an individual by the government. The awardees have paid a tremendous price, especially the MOH, and this is the government's recognition of that price paid.
When someone wears one of those medals unworthily, it inherently harms all who earned them by definition.
Snaquebite
07-16-2010, 18:50
He acted on point of law.
The language of the SVA may need to be tweaked.
I anticipate a final victory.
My cup is always half full.
Bob, you have a point however, this needs attention NOW. Without any kind of push who know's how long that could take. I've begun e-mailing anyone and everyone that can help bring this to light (public attention) and possibly get some type of Congressional reaction. I started with the two sponsors....
The Act was first introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on July 19, 2005, by Representative John Salazar, a Democrat from Colorado, as H.R. 3352.[2][3] It was introduced into the Senate by Senator Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, on November 10, 2005, as S. 1998.[4][5] The Senate version was passed unanimously on September 7, 2006.[5][6] The Senate version then went to the same House Judiciary Committee that held the House version. The Act briefly stalled, but the House subsequently passed the Senate version, S. 1998, on December 6, 2006.
Some history on this case:
As of January 2010, a legal challenge concerning the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act is underway in the U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado. Rick Strandlof founded an organization called Colorado Veterans Alliance, and is accused of posing as Marine Captain "Rick Duncan" and claiming to have received a Silver Star and Purple Heart in the Iraq War to obtain funds for his organization. Strandlof's attorney believes the law is too vague and that "protecting the reputation of military decorations is insufficient to survive this exacting scrutiny."[17] The Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based civil liberties group, joined in the case on January 20, 2010. "Such expression remains within the presumptive protection afforded pure speech by the First Amendment," the Institute's attorney wrote. "As such, the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of speech."
This ruling is the very essence of what we have all sworn to protect and defend with our lives.
What the ruling supports, is the fundamental right of free unrestricted speech, up to and including the destruction of our most cherished symbols. Justice Blackburn questions, as have others, how are we to distinguished what is more important between one representative object and another. Who establishes the value, and who has that right too impose the value on others, without first, negating the very essence of our rights protected by the 1st amendment.
In another thread someone remarked that the idea of being American was a mindset, and that idea is what made us unique. Being an American was a state of beliefs, enshrined in our Constitution as unalienable rights.
Being an American involves a level of consideration for cultural and religious differences that supersedes restriction. Being an American Soldier means swearing an oath of allegiance that supersedes our own prejudices in protecting those differences, even if those who most benefit from that oath, would never swear allegiance to it.
Some time ago, when the issue of burning the flag was causing severe emotional distress for many of us, I none the less, asked my state Senator, a WWII combat vet to vote against establishing the act as criminal for the same reason.
When we watch foreign protesters burn effigies and our National symbol, it disturbs us, not because we fear the loss of those emblems, but because it represents a threat to its representation, our ideals: Words, those which we willing defend and are prepared to die for, are more important that symbolic representations.
In that regard, false witness and false presentation are deeply embedded in our Judeo-Christian heritage, our culture. As such, when those ideals are trespassed upon, by a community or an individual, they are often ostracized and outcast from the very community they so desperately wanted to be a part of. Only in this way, is there any justice, for in any other manner we would contradict our commitment to the ideal of freedom and our core belief syatem.
I would suggest new legislation, perhaps titled , "The Blanket Party Act".
Is it a bring your own blanket? :lifter
I have a nice bar of soap...... kinda looks like a brick..:D
This is along the same lines as "that church" that thinks "God loves IEDs" and their First Ammendment rights to preach their ideas.
This ruling is the very essence of what we have all sworn to protect and defend with our lives.
What the ruling supports, is the fundamental right of free unrestricted speech, up to and including the destruction of our most cherished symbols. Justice Blackburn questions, as have others, how are we to distinguished what is more important between one representative object and another. Who establishes the value, and who has that right too impose the value on others, without first, negating the very essence of our rights protected by the 1st amendment.
In another thread someone remarked that the idea of being American was a mindset, and that idea is what made us unique. Being an American was a state of beliefs, enshrined in our Constitution as unalienable rights.
Being an American involves a level of consideration for cultural and religious differences that supersedes restriction. Being an American Soldier means swearing an oath of allegiance that supersedes our own prejudices in protecting those differences, even if those who most benefit from that oath, would never swear allegiance to it.
Some time ago, when the issue of burning the flag was causing severe emotional distress for many of us, I none the less, asked my state Senator, a WWII combat vet to vote against establishing the act as criminal for the same reason.
When we watch foreign protesters burn effigies and our National symbol, it disturbs us, not because we fear the loss of those emblems, but because it represents a threat to its representation, our ideals: Words, those which we willing defend and are prepared to die for, are more important that symbolic representations.
In that regard, false witness and false presentation are deeply embedded in our Judeo-Christian heritage, our culture. As such, when those ideals are trespassed upon, by a community or an individual, they are often ostracized and outcast from the very community they so desperately wanted to be a part of. Only in this way, is there any justice, for in any other manner we would contradict our commitment to the ideal of freedom and our core belief syatem.
This, I completely agree. Just because it is offensive or you do not like something, does not mean it should be illegal. We have to fight and protect all of our rights, not just the ones we like. If we believe so strongly that something should or should not be, we have the power to amend our rights.
So where do we stand ref false representation of an LEO, wearing fake uniform, carring fake creds/badges? If you do any of these you are commiting a crime. Are they going to strike this down as a 1st Ammendment right? Not a lawyer but they seam to be like items.......
MasterOfMyFate
07-17-2010, 06:02
So where do we stand ref false representation of an LEO, wearing fake uniform, carring fake creds/badges? If you do any of these you are commiting a crime. Are they going to strike this down as a 1st Ammendment right? Not a lawyer but they seam to be like items.......
I wouldn't think simply WEARING these items would be illegal, or simply SAYING you are a LEO/Soldier/Vet/Award recipient. But, the combination of wearing and/or saying those things to gain any sort of pleasure, profit, favors or for the purpose of swindling/hood-winking someone...... THAt definitely SHOULD be.
I wouldn't think simply WEARING these items would be illegal, or simply SAYING you are a LEO/Soldier/Vet/Award recipient. But, the combination of wearing and/or saying those things to gain any sort of pleasure, profit, favors or for the purpose of swindling/hood-winking someone...... THAt definitely SHOULD be.
I would guess that almost every SVA violator does it for these reasons.
Back to the LEO question, what if someone bought a police type car, painted/equipped it as such (with light bar, etc...) and never stopped anyone but just used it for commuting - obviously it would reduce any tickets or you could maneuver easier thru traffic. It's just an expression, not hurting anyone... right?
MasterOfMyFate
07-17-2010, 08:09
I would guess that almost every SVA violator does it for these reasons.
Back to the LEO question, what if someone bought a police type car, painted/equipped it as such (with light bar, etc...) and never stopped anyone but just used it for commuting - obviously it would reduce any tickets or you could maneuver easier thru traffic. It's just an expression, not hurting anyone... right?
Hmmmm..... Maybe that is the conundrum that the Courts are facing in trying to prosecute these guys.... It's so "vaguely specific" and there are so many gray areas. I mean, with the police car example, of course it would make it easier for this person to commute, because people are intimidated when a policae car is nearby. Now, what would be hard to prove, is "was that this persons INTENT when they got/designed this car?"..... Unless we go into impact vs intent, which is "a-whole-nother" can of worms!
Now for Service members, it is cut and dry, point blank: You didn't earn it, you BETTER not wear it! Well, unless you are "SGM" Liutelli..... Reading that thread REALLY grinds my gears.....
Utah Bob
07-17-2010, 09:59
Bob, you have a point however, this needs attention NOW. Without any kind of push who know's how long that could take. I've begun e-mailing anyone and everyone that can help bring this to light (public attention) and possibly get some type of Congressional reaction. I started with the two sponsors....
Some history on this case:
As of January 2010, a legal challenge concerning the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act is underway in the U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado. Rick Strandlof founded an organization called Colorado Veterans Alliance, and is accused of posing as Marine Captain "Rick Duncan" and claiming to have received a Silver Star and Purple Heart in the Iraq War to obtain funds for his organization. Strandlof's attorney believes the law is too vague and that "protecting the reputation of military decorations is insufficient to survive this exacting scrutiny."[17] The Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based civil liberties group, joined in the case on January 20, 2010. "Such expression remains within the presumptive protection afforded pure speech by the First Amendment," the Institute's attorney wrote. "As such, the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of speech."
Correct. We can't sit on our haunches and wait for something good to happen. I have written to my congress people imploring them to get on this immediately and contact DOJ to ask them to get the appeal going asap. I also asked them to work on re-worded bills if the need be or revisions to the SVA act what will make it Constitutionally stronger. These letters will be followed up with phone calls. Also wrote letters to the editors of several papers.
This is why I'm confident:
If a laid back old dork like me has gotten this motivated then a lot more folks with energy and influence must also be riled up.;)
Utah Bob
07-17-2010, 10:18
Penn,
I have to agree with you on many of your points. I too was against the flag burning prohibition and other laws which serve to erode the core of the Constitutional freedoms.
However, I would argue that the wearing of un-earned medals is not a Freedom of Speech issue anymore than walking nude down Main Street is.
If the decision is allowed to stand what is to prevent a poser from suing an individual or organization who rightly "outs' him in public? He could claim damages, loss of community standing, income, etc., because they interfered with his first amendment right to be a poser. Few people are ostracized and outcast these days. We don't live in villages and don't brand thieves.
I understand that some see this as a slippery slope issue.
Green Light
07-17-2010, 11:11
Bob, I respect what you're saying here. You're probably a cooler head and better read than I am. But it doesn't feel right or smell right.
However, I would argue that the wearing of un-earned medals is not a Freedom of Speech issue anymore than walking nude down Main Street is
I think you've congealed it here to its best point. It is not a press issue, it is not a religious or political speech issue, it believe it is a matter of respect for the nation's institutions.
I think of every MOH guy I've ever met and it gives me a knot in my stomach. I think of that young woman who earned a Silver Star in 2008 and her amazing feat. I'm not as smart as you or probably all of the rest of this board, but I know right and wrong. I can also compare the valor and personal attributes of heroes to those who buy those medals off the internet and wear them to gratify their empty lives. The latter are akin to something you scrape off your boots.
greenberetTFS
07-17-2010, 11:54
Bob, I respect what you're saying here. You're probably a cooler head and better read than I am. But it doesn't feel right or smell right.
I think you've congealed it here to its best point. It is not a press issue, it is not a religious or political speech issue, it believe it is a matter of respect for the nation's institutions.
I think of every MOH guy I've ever met and it gives me a knot in my stomach. I think of that young woman who earned a Silver Star in 2008 and her amazing feat. I'm not as smart as you or probably all of the rest of this board, but I know right and wrong. I can also compare the valor and personal attributes of heroes to those who buy those medals off the internet and wear them to gratify their empty lives. The latter are akin to something you scrape off your boots.
Excellent point GL,I'm feel the same way.............:(:(:(
Big Teddy :munchin
This is along the same lines as "that church" that thinks "God loves IEDs" and their First Ammendment rights to preach their ideas.
Sir, very well said!!! Agree completely, 100%.
And am honestly curious, though I am naive still to this day, why any real American whould not see this as so? :confused:
We are talking about folks that gave their all to earn the MOH, and these are folks many Americans look up to for hope, in this current world of half-ass politicians running the show, not having any backbone at all, but are our "leaders.":rolleyes:
IMHO, the only reason America is not going to hell in a handbasket, is because we value the sacrifice of brave soldiers, that still have the intestinal fortitude to give, of themselves, to protect us. If we as a Nation, slap that away from them, what are they defending?:(
Holly
I am uncertain how to address the concerns and examples that have been cited to justify your arguments. The ruling is not about what if, it’s about the interpretation of the first amendment under “strict scrunity”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
Compelling state interest test
The compelling state interest test is a test used by the US Federal Courts in due process and equal protection claims (all claims with Constitutional bases, actually) under the Fourteenth Amendment for state action and under the Fifth Amendment for federal action. It is part of the strict scrutiny analysis that a federal court will employ when either a suspect class or a fundamental right is involved. A government action or statute subject to strict scrutiny must be done in furtherance of a compelling state interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The court will apply the strictest scrutiny to the state or federal action when it impacts or targets a specially protected class (e.g., a racial or ethnic group) or when a fundamental and Constitutionally protected right is involved (e.g. freedom of speech or the right to vote). The compelling state interest test is distinguishable from the rational basis test, which involves claims that do not involve a suspect class and involve a liberty interest rather than a fundamental right.
[edit]Notable cases
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)
craigepo
07-17-2010, 22:05
I am attaching a link to the opinion the above-mentioned judge mentioned, wherein the other judge, in another Stolen Valor case, held that the Stolen Valor law was constitutional.
Having read both opinions, both judges seem to have some good points.
I don't necessarily want the government chasing guys in bars, who tell girls about how they parachuted out of the space shuttle(guilty!!). Conversely, a person who makes these claims to receive V.A. benefits is clearly guilty of fraud, and has no First Amendment protection. The issue is where exactly the line is Constitutionally drawn.
http://www.pownetwork.org/pownet.secure/alvarezdenyingmotiontodismiss.pdf
greenberetTFS
07-18-2010, 01:56
So where do we stand ref false representation of an LEO, wearing fake uniform, carring fake creds/badges? If you do any of these you are commiting a crime. Are they going to strike this down as a 1st Ammendment right? Not a lawyer but they seam to be like items.......
SF_BHT,
Good points and I haven't seen any response to your questions yet...............:confused:
Big Teddy :munchin
It's a hard one to respond to because it's a great point, but I think walking around in a police uniform or driving a car painted to look like a police cruise brings with it a lot more than telling bullshit war stories. People see cops and it changes how they act entirely, they also expect cops to be able to help them or what not. What happens when somebody comes running up to this "cop" for help? Just wearing an LEO uniform is enough to receive special treatment, and be expected to carry a certain amount of responsibility, where as just saying you won a silver star is not necessarily.
I think people who lie about that stuff are terrible, useless people, don't get me wrong, and remember that it's all of ours right to out fakes just as much as it is theirs to be a fake.
It's a hard one to respond to because it's a great point, but I think walking around in a police uniform or driving a car painted to look like a police cruise brings with it a lot more than telling bullshit war stories. People see cops and it changes how they act entirely, they also expect cops to be able to help them or what not. What happens when somebody comes running up to this "cop" for help? Just wearing an LEO uniform is enough to receive special treatment, and be expected to carry a certain amount of responsibility, where as just saying you won a silver star is not necessarily.
I think people who lie about that stuff are terrible, useless people, don't get me wrong, and remember that it's all of ours right to out fakes just as much as it is theirs to be a fake.
There was recently a news clip about a guy that had a badge, uniform, unmarked car with lights etc who had been driving around and acting like a cop. No interaction just presence. and then another doing the same but stopped someone and the idiot called for backup. These are two type of LEO POSERS and they both were arrested. Uniformed LEO's get some special treatment at times well Military personnel also get special treatment depending where you are (discounts, line preference, Vet Benefits, Vet pref Hiring, etc) These SVA violators are usually more that just boasting to people, they have gained from their acts and that is criminal in may laws on the books. Do not just think of them as bar stool bull Sh$#t artist trying to get laid or a free drink. They are criminal's just like anyone who has stolen some ones identity or any con artist out there.
Just my 2 cents
ZonieDiver
07-18-2010, 07:02
So... all we are left with is the 'Blanket Party' option?
So... all we are left with is the 'Blanket Party' option?
No 2 Blanket Party's............... one for the Poser and one for the Judge that mad this ruling........:rolleyes:
In looking back, I see I missed an important detail, this decision was render IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT Of COLORADO and will mostly likely be appealed.
If it is, the next court is the United States Court Of Appeals 10th District.
The question/issue of before the district court concerning 1st amendment protect is outlined on pages 3 and 4.
“Amendment significance at all. Although conceding that some falsehoods may be
protected in the context of encouraging public debate and political discourse – “speech that ‘matters’” in the government’s view – the government maintains that defendant’s statements and other, similar “[p]etty lies . . . do not promote the uninhibited marketplace of ideas and therefore are not protected” by the First Amendment. (Amended Government’s Supplemental Brief at 10 [#27], filed January 11, 2010.) Stated differently, because defendant was not conveying a political message, speaking on a matter of public concern, or expressing a viewpoint or opinion, so the argument goes, his speech does not merit constitutional protection. The only other court that appears to have addressed the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act relied on a similar rationale in rejecting a defendant’s First Amendment challenge to the statute.
(See id. App, Exh. A (Order Denying Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss, United States v. Alvarez, CR 07-1035(A)-RGK).)
Above, District Judge Blackburn outlines the argument, noting that an earlier ruling confirms the constitutionality of the SVA in United States v. Alvarez, CR 07-1035(A)-RGK).) The footnote attached to the ruling states that the Alvarez case is being appealed in the 9th District United States Courts
The importance of the Alvarez appeal is the legality of the SVA, beginning the second certification process with regard to its constitutionality, or not.
Regardless, of how the 9th district rules, this same question will be addressed before the 10th district United States Court of Appeals, should the case be appealed, I think it will. Then, if both courts rule that the law contained in the SVA is Constitutional, then the law will be settled, and SVA will be enforceable.
If each District court rules differently, then a split court will result, and the constitutionality of SVA must be settled in the SCOTUS.
I think this will be the logical progression of the SVA. Congress creates laws, The SCOTUS decides whether its constitutional.
These SVA violators are usually more that just boasting to people, they have gained from their acts and that is criminal in may laws on the books. Do not just think of them as bar stool bull Sh$#t artist trying to get laid or a free drink. They are criminal's just like anyone who has stolen some ones identity or any con artist out there.
Just my 2 cents
I completely agree that, I think the SVA just needs some rewording to clear up any constitutionality issues.
killerelite83
07-19-2010, 16:25
As a soldier of friends that have earned several honorable medals it is quite disturbin to know that our government judical system will side favor someone that has falsely claim to have earned such medals then call it strike against the Freedom of Speech it has nothin to do with freedom of speech but if they let this thru I'm just wonderin how many people of the same caliber will see this as a perfect opportunity to go even further. I personally have no respect for anyone like that. Even everythang I have earned I'm thankful and honored for it but I dont go around blastin it never have never will. Though I em very proud of it all!
alright4u
07-19-2010, 22:28
Penn,
I have to agree with you on many of your points. I too was against the flag burning prohibition and other laws which serve to erode the core of the Constitutional freedoms.
However, I would argue that the wearing of un-earned medals is not a Freedom of Speech issue anymore than walking nude down Main Street is.
If the decision is allowed to stand what is to prevent a poser from suing an individual or organization who rightly "outs' him in public? He could claim damages, loss of community standing, income, etc., because they interfered with his first amendment right to be a poser. Few people are ostracized and outcast these days. We don't live in villages and don't brand thieves.
I understand that some see this as a slippery slope issue.
My take is the judge was pissed that the prosecutor did not charge him for fraud, too. This clown used his BS story to bilk thousands from people.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/17/court-rules-people-right-lie-receiving-military-medals/
(http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/17/court-rules-people-right-lie-receiving-military-medals/)
PASADENA, Calif. -- A federal appeals court panel in California says people have a right to lie about receiving military medals.
The Tuesday ruling involves the case of Xavier Alvarez, who falsely claimed in 2007 to have won a Congressional Medal of Honor. He was charged with violating the federal Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to falsely claim to have won a military medal.
Alvarez challenged the law on appeal as a violation of his free-speech rights.
A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with him in a 2-1 decision. The majority said there's no evidence that such lies harm anybody, and there's no compelling reason for the government to ban such lies.
The U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles is deciding whether to appeal the ruling.
What.
The full opinion is found here:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/08/17/08-50345.pdf
The opinion of Bybee, the dissenting judge, begins on p. 35 and makes for an interesting read.
Richard :munchin
ErikTheRed
01-28-2012, 20:00
"A federal appeals court ruled Friday that a U.S. law making it illegal to lie about being a war hero"
http://www.military.com/news/article/us-appeals-court-upholds-stolen-valor-act.html?ESRC=sm_todayinmil.nl