Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > At Ease > The Early Bird

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-17-2012, 22:41   #1
alelks
Quiet Professional
 
alelks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Pauls, NC
Posts: 2,668
Supreme Court to hear military medal lying case

It will be interesting to see the results:

Supreme Court to hear military medal lying case



2:04 p.m. CST, February 17, 2012
Ads by Google

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. law making it a crime to lie about receiving a military medal goes before the Supreme Court next week, with the Obama administration defending it for protecting the reputation of war heroes and opponents arguing it violated free-speech rights.

The justices will hear arguments Wednesday on whether an appeals court was correct to strike down the "Stolen Valor Act" adopted by Congress in 2006 for infringing on constitutional free-speech rights, a case about how far the government may go to prosecute false claims about military honors.

Opponents said the law swept too broadly, suppressed speech and covered innocent bragging, satire, parody and even statements that caused no harm, like those at issue in the case by a serial liar who held local political office in California.

The Obama administration argued in a written brief filed with the Supreme Court that the law was necessary to protect the integrity of the nation's system of military honors. It said the lies take away from the honor bestowed on deserving war heroes.

Administration attorneys said the First Amendment does not include the right to make "knowingly false factual statements" about military awards and urged the law be upheld as constitutional.

The law "does not restrict expression of opinion about military policy, the meaning of military awards, the values they represent or any other topic of public concern," Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote. He will argue the case.

The law targets individuals who falsely claim, verbally or in writing, that they won a military medal or decoration. Violators can face up to six months in prison, or up to one year for elite awards, including the Medal of Honor.

The case involved Xavier Alvarez, who was elected to a California water board in Pomona. He introduced himself at a board meeting in 2007 and said he was a retired Marine who won the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military decoration.

Alvarez never received the award and never served in the military. The FBI got a recording of the meeting and Alvarez became one of the first defendants prosecuted under the law.

He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay a $5,000 fine and perform more than 400 hours of community service at a veterans hospital. He then challenged the law for violating his free-speech rights and a U.S. appeals court ruled in his favor.

His attorney Jonathan Libby told the Supreme Court in a written brief there was no evidence that anyone believed Alvarez or that he received any benefit from his lie.

"He has told a bunch of whoppers, his claimed receipt of the of the Medal of Honor being just one of many," said Libby, a deputy federal public defender in Los Angeles who will argue the case before the high court.

"But exaggerated anecdotes, barroom braggadocio and cocktail party puffery have always been thought to be beyond the realm of government reach and to pass without fear of criminal prosecution," Libby said.

Only 45 cases have been brought in the first five years the medal law has been in effect, Libby said.

The chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit which considered the case strongly agreed with Alvarez.

Judge Alex Kozinski said it would be "terrifying" and would permit censorship by "the truth police" if people could be prosecuted for "the white lies, exaggerations and deceptions" that are part of normal social interactions.

The Supreme Court in recent years has generally supported free-speech challenges to government restrictions. In 2010, it struck down a federal law that banned videos depicting animal cruelty for violating free-speech rights.

If the justices strikes down the law, legislation already has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives to make such lies a crime only if there was intent to profit.

A number of veterans groups and 20 states supported the government while the American Civil Liberties Union, 23 news media organizations and a wide range of free-speech advocacy groups backed Alvarez.

The Supreme Court case is United States v. Xavier Alvarez, No. 11-210.

(Reporting By James Vicini; Editing by Anthony Boadle)
alelks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 22:50   #2
CSB
Quiet Professional
 
CSB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Clarksville, TN
Posts: 1,159
No matter how the case is decided...

Xavier Alvarez... May you live forever.

Last edited by CSB; 02-18-2012 at 10:22.
CSB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2012, 07:26   #3
cbtengr
Area Commander
 
cbtengr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,810
"Judge Alex Kozinski said it would be "terrifying" and would permit censorship by "the truth police" if people could be prosecuted for "the white lies, exaggerations and deceptions" that are part of normal social interactions."

Another public official who just does not get it, of course it is California. He's told lots of "whoppers" and no one previously has believed him, must not tell the MOH whopper very often.
__________________
The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
cbtengr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2012, 10:30   #4
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL View Post
I have a pretty solid sick feeling that the SCOTUS will side with the Court of Appeals on this. Although if people lie, and receive monetary benefits from it, it's still fraud, which is perfectly actionable. The whole thing blows.
Then why is it illegal to pretend to be a law enforcement officer?

TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2012, 18:04   #5
craigepo
Quiet Professional
 
craigepo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southern Mo
Posts: 1,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper View Post
Then why is it illegal to pretend to be a law enforcement officer?

TR
If I'm reading the laws correctly, I can go to a bar tonight and tell women I'm a cop until I'm blue in the face---that's legal. However, if I impersonate a policeman, put on a badge and pull people over with a fake car, etc., then I have a legal problem.

That is why this is going to the US Supreme Court. These folks weren't "impersonating" war heroes, in that some dude wasn't saying he was a special forces hero, then going and doing special forces stuff. The defendants were just saying that they were heroes. No action, all speech, so that's how we wind up with a 1st Amendment free speech issue that gets heard by the Supreme Court.

This is going to be an interesting issue. Generally, the 1st Amendment does not protect a lie. That is how we have so many dishonesty-based crimes on the books, as well as civil actions based upon both purposeful and negligent misrepresentation.

However, we have a 4-4-1 Supreme Court. I wouldn't bet anything on this outcome.
__________________
"And how can man die better than facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his gods?"
Thomas Babington Macaulay


"One man with courage makes a majority." Andrew Jackson

"Well Mr. Carpetbagger. We got something in this territory called the Missouri boat ride."
Josey Wales
craigepo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2012, 23:02   #6
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigepo View Post
If I'm reading the laws correctly, I can go to a bar tonight and tell women I'm a cop until I'm blue in the face---that's legal. However, if I impersonate a policeman, put on a badge and pull people over with a fake car, etc., then I have a legal problem.

That is why this is going to the US Supreme Court. These folks weren't "impersonating" war heroes, in that some dude wasn't saying he was a special forces hero, then going and doing special forces stuff. The defendants were just saying that they were heroes. No action, all speech, so that's how we wind up with a 1st Amendment free speech issue that gets heard by the Supreme Court.

This is going to be an interesting issue. Generally, the 1st Amendment does not protect a lie. That is how we have so many dishonesty-based crimes on the books, as well as civil actions based upon both purposeful and negligent misrepresentation.

However, we have a 4-4-1 Supreme Court. I wouldn't bet anything on this outcome.
What happens when he starts wearing the uniform and medals in public?

That happened recently when a young man started telling people he was a General Officer, and wearing the uniform to public events. His lawyer said variously that he was merely exercising his First Amendment rights, he was making a joke, and that he was wearing it as an expression of satire. Like a Halloween costume.

Can I wear my police uniform and badge in my bedroom? In my house? In my yard? Anywhere on October 31st?

Where is the line, Sir?

TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2012, 09:42   #7
craigepo
Quiet Professional
 
craigepo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southern Mo
Posts: 1,541
I'm going to try to attach a link, which leads to some pretty articulate discussion, both pro and con, for the Stolen Valor act. You can read in a few moments what would take me hours to compose.

http://www.scotusblog.com/community/...len-valor-act/

One older supreme court case scholars discuss holds that "false speech receives no protection". (I believe the case name is Gertz). I have not studied this case enough to be able to comment upon whether it would apply, in whole or in part, in the present context. However, if the Court followed this rationale, the result is that the SVA is constitutional, as this defendant clearly lied about his military service.

If the Court were to strike this law down, they will have to be careful to avoid opening a Pandora's box, in that both the Feds and the states have lots of laws the criminalize lies in various contexts.

I notice that some lawmakers have proposed amendments that would add a "damage" requirement to the law, which would mandate a finding that a defendant gained something, money etc., in order to impose criminal sanctions upon a defendant. Whether those hit the floor of Congress will depend on the Court's decision in this case.
__________________
"And how can man die better than facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his gods?"
Thomas Babington Macaulay


"One man with courage makes a majority." Andrew Jackson

"Well Mr. Carpetbagger. We got something in this territory called the Missouri boat ride."
Josey Wales
craigepo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:38.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies