Stolen Valor Act - Unconstitutional? CO Court Ruling

[Penn]

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.

[J8127]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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

[ErikTheRed]

"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..._todayinmil.nl