Posing is Constitutional
 

US appeals court panel: Law against faking receipt of military medals is unconstitutional

Published August 17, 2010

PASADENA, Calif. – A three-year-old federal law that makes it a crime to falsely claim to have received a medal from the U.S. military is unconstitutional, an appeals court panel in California ruled Tuesday.

The decision involves the case of Xavier Alvarez of Pomona, Calif., a water district board member who said at a public meeting in 2007 that he was a retired Marine who received the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military decoration.

Alvarez was indicted in 2007. He pleaded guilty on condition that he be allowed to appeal on First Amendment grounds. He was sentenced under the Stolen Valor Act to more than 400 hours of community service at a veterans hospital and fined $5,000.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with him in a 2-1 decision Tuesday, agreeing that the law was a violation of his free-speech rights. 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 dissenting justice insisted that the majority refused to follow clear Supreme Court precedent that false statements of fact are not entitled to First Amendment protection.

The act revised and toughened a law that forbids anyone to wear a military medal that wasn't earned. The measure sailed through Congress in late 2006, receiving unanimous approval in the Senate.

Dozens of people have been arrested under the law at a time when veterans coming home from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are being embraced as heroes. Many of the cases involve men who simply got caught living a lie without profiting from it. Almost all the impostors have been ordered to perform community service.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles said it was deciding whether to appeal Tuesday's ruling.

MVP

The reason they gave was the worse part. They said it's free speech to lie about a Medal of Honor because it doesn't hurt anyone.

I am so pissed I can't even think straight,that in this great country something like this could happen to our honored and decorated hero's......:( When will this country wake up and realize where we are headed? When?..........:confused: In someways I'm glad I'm an old man and won't have to be around when it does...........:mad:

Big Teddy :munchin

It is only 'illegal' if there is profit, recognized gain, etc, but to just say it in public as long as it doesn't lead to a job...wow, have to (?) respect the 9th circuit for shaming the honor of all those who have earned all of the citations, medals, ribbons and honors by allowing an imposter/poser/lier to publically display or state they are their equals...it just offends the common senses.

ss

I'd love to see the pictures and names of all these posers put out all over the place in order for the general population to be able to publicly censure them or even deny them services at say, restaurants, hotels, employment, etc.

I know, that's mean and unAmerican. But ask me if I give a sh*t! These people are lower than politicians and the media. :mad:

Free speech
 

Guess I can call myself a judge now :)
Think I will be a supreme court judge at that:D

Blue

You mean "beheaded", right?

Does everyone realize that the way the law was written, even someone such as an undercover agent who claims to have been SF or a SEAL and awarded an SF Tab or Trident or Parachutist Badge or BSM or PH or any such award or decoration as a part of their cover story could be charged under the SV Act for making such claims?

S 1998 at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c1094Wryz2::

The intent of the law is honorable - the law itself, as written, is flawed.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

While that may be "correct" out of the dozens and dozens of "FRAUDS" I've dealt with none have been arrested or charged with anything. Some of the individuals I've busted have actually placed real soldiers (and civilian police) in harms way. How much more egregious does being a fraud need to be? And all have done it (posed as a Special Forces soldier) for personal gain.

I'm going to start a identity theft ring posing as a 9th circuit Judge. If and when I'm caught I'm going to use freedom of speech as my defense.

Leave it to the 9th Circuit CoA to come up with this decision. It really doesn't surprise me that this is the venue they chose to try the case. It increased their odds tremendously. Maybe it will go to SCOTUS, like a large number of the 9th Circuits decisions have.

reintroduction
 

I have been keeping this to myself since I did not want to make any of you uncomfortable...

Allow me to reintroduce my self.
My name is Billy. I am the President of the United Kingdom of Raefordstan. I have been awarded the Kings Medal for Greatness a record 14 times. I considered resigning from my position as president to assume a position on the 9th Circus Court of Appeals but they have not yet proved worthy of true respect.

The Court Jesters are quite entertaining, they make me smile.


Thats is all.... please return to your activities.

The ninth circuit is the most overturned court in the land. THis ruling won't last. They are from California.....Need I say more?

I am now the Supreme Emperor of North America. All heed my authority! :lifter

i dont agree with this analysis. this situation is covered by the defense of justification. it would be analagous to charging an undercover cop with possession of a controlled substance immediately after he did a "buy".

Not being a jurist, I would certainly hope common sense would dictate in the interpretation of this law as written.

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.

However, based upon the 9th CofA's decision, it seems as if not all jursits can agree upon such a premise.

Richard