Stolen Valor Act - Unconstitutional? CO Court Ruling

[MasterOfMyFate]

Originally Posted by SF_BHT

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.

[koz]

Originally Posted by MasterOfMyFate

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]

Originally Posted by koz

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]

[QUOTE=Snaquebite;339623]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."[/QUOTE]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Green Light

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

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Stras

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?

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."

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

[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

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by SF_BHT

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...............

Big Teddy

[J8127]

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.

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by J8127

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]

So... all we are left with is the 'Blanket Party' option?

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

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........