Stolen Valor Act - Unconstitutional? CO Court Ruling

[Snaquebite]

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....16339.46.0.pdf

[greenberetTFS]

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........... This sucks big time!.........

Big Teddy

[J8127]

Something like the SVA could definitly garner enough support for a Constitutional Amendment.

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by J8127

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!!

Source

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.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Snaquebite

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]

Originally Posted by echoes

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.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Utah Bob

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]

Originally Posted by echoes

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".

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Utah Bob

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

[Stras]

Originally Posted by Utah Bob

I would suggest new legislation, perhaps titled , "The Blanket Party Act".

Is it a bring your own blanket?

I have a nice bar of soap...... kinda looks like a brick..

This is along the same lines as "that church" that thinks "God loves IEDs" and their First Ammendment rights to preach their ideas.

[Penn]

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]

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.sec...ntodismiss.pdf

[killerelite83]

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!

[Pariah]

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.

[Richard]

The full opinion is found here:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...7/08-50345.pdf

The opinion of Bybee, the dissenting judge, begins on p. 35 and makes for an interesting read.

Richard