Stolen Valor Act ruled unconstitutional

[JPL]

Just came across this news article on this subject.

I'm sure that this will spark a lot of debate.

There is also a video to view on the website.

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/lying-about-military-honors-not-a-crime

Jean-Paul

[army historian]

Bravo, even though I don't like fakers etc. the law was completely stupid! It restricted the collecting, owning and trade of many US decoration, even by the recipient or his/her family. It would relegate these awards to the garbage (no value ) or sale overseas (if you could get them out of the country! Cheers Captain Albert :jumping: :jumping:

Edited August 20, 2010 by army historian

[Tim B]

I couldn't agree more!

Tim

[Paul R]

I am upset to see it go down. This law never restricted collectors, just idiots who wanted to go around wearing the medals, claiming right to them for self serving and fraudulent reasons.

[speagle]

I am upset to see it go down. This law never restricted collectors, just idiots who wanted to go around wearing the medals, claiming right to them for self serving and fraudulent reasons.

CONCUR!!!!!

Ed

[Megan]

Unfortunately, with all due respect to our American cousins, it's the wrong part of the SVA that has been challenged.

Like most of us here, I thoroughly disapprove of people pretending - for glory or for gain - to have been awarded medals that they are not entitled to claim, and don't hold truck with the idea that 'freedom of speech' means 'freedom to lie through your teeth'!

Where the SVA went astray was making it illegal to SELL certain medals, which has made trade in, for example, the Medal of Honor virtually impossible unless you are a recipient or descendant of one wanting to sell it to a museum.

They ought to have swiped the relevant text from the UK Army Act 1955 which made it illegal to wear or claim to have been awarded any medal that you had not earned, and for a SERVING member of the armed forces to sell his medals. That handled the matter of fake claimants far better, and made it absolutely clear that the collecting trade was not included. Alas that bit not make it into the most recent version of military legislation here.

[Brian Wolfe]

As or society heads toward an atmosphere of intolerance and self absorbed interests to depend on legislation to deal with such issues as claiming to have served and or the wearing of medals and decorations won by others is to give up a certain amount of freedom. To say that freedom of speech should be regulated is to support censorship. I think we tend to get caught up in the currect fervour of support for the military and actions abroad. To speak out aginst to this action would be most unpopular indeed and would be met, as it has in the past, with public distain and stong rebuttal. This is where I am expected to say, "But not me, I support the military, look at what a good person I am". That's not going to happen as I trust the membership is intelligent enough to realize my views, after all, I am a member of a military interest forum.

My point is that while we would argue against any anti-militaristic comments we would not, or at least have not as yet, passed legislation against the "ranting" or those who seek peace at any cost. We would probably bring up the history of pre-World War Two in our argument against peace at any cost, brand the author of such statements as the village idiot and tell him (or her) to sit down and shut up. I noticed, dare I say it, that many members supported the Stolen Valor Act with enthusiasm until the full impact hit home. That could just be my imagination but that was the way it seemed to me. If my interpretation of those posts is accurate then it serves as a good example of expecting legislation to deal with those things we disagree with yet expect the scope of that same legislation to have no impact our personal lives.

Do we really need legislation to discourage those who would make claims and wear decorations they did not earn? If we do then we may be on the path to an Orwellian society paved with the bricks of apthay.

Respectfully sibmitted

Brian

[Paul R]

Where the SVA went astray was making it illegal to SELL certain medals, which has made trade in, for example, the Medal of Honor virtually impossible unless you are a recipient or descendant of one wanting to sell it to a museum.

The Medal of Honor was illegal for sale, wear, manufactor(other than authorized sources), and reproduce well prior to this law being passed.

[army historian]

The Medal of Honor was illegal for sale, wear, manufactor(other than authorized sources), and reproduce well prior to this law being passed.

True, so what was the point of this silly legislation? The United States insists on trying to legislate morality, and against inanimate objects. Buying, selling, trading or owning has nothing in the world to due with fraud, misrepresentation etc. Brian Wolfe is totally correct "Do we really need legislation to discourage those who would make claims and wear decorations they did not earn? If we do then we may be on the path to an Orwellian society paved with the bricks of apthay." I would add "and fueled by peoples misguide moralities, and beliefs." I would also ask how many other countries are this crazy! Seems to me the US is on the wrong path. I personally have kept documentation, orders, etc. on every decoration and medal I wear. I am expecting someday for some some neo-Nazi type government law enforcement official to ask "Show me your papers". Respectfully Captain Albert

[Paul R]

True, so what was the point of this silly legislation? The United States insists on trying to legislate morality, and against inanimate objects. Buying, selling, trading or owning has nothing in the world to due with fraud, misrepresentation etc. Brian Wolfe is totally correct "Do we really need legislation to discourage those who would make claims and wear decorations they did not earn? If we do then we may be on the path to an Orwellian society paved with the bricks of apthay." I would add "and fueled by peoples misguide moralities, and beliefs." I would also ask how many other countries are this crazy! Seems to me the US is on the wrong path. I personally have kept documentation, orders, etc. on every decoration and medal I wear. I am expecting someday for some some neo-Nazi type government law enforcement official to ask "Show me your papers". Respectfully Captain Albert

In my opinion...

It is not about people wearing costumes ridiculously festooned with ribbons and badges. It is for those who lie about their false exploits for some sort of financial or prestige/position gain. It is about fraud. Sure, there are already fraud laws on the books, but as in with other crimes, there are extenuating circumstances which could be used to mitigate or exacerbate the base allegation. I feel that people stealing the sacrifices given by others for their own fraudulent gains should be publicly recognized and dealt with, on top of the base crime.

[Tim B]

Hi guys,

All of you are making good, valid arguments but, I think Megan hit closer to point; the law could have been written better and more specific to the problem that addresses those that commit fraud, either with the wearing of military awards not earned, or the monetary benefits that come with certain awards.

VA fraud is rampant, always has been and IMO, it will never get fully under control. Same goes for large programs like Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, etc. When a person can get away with an additional 10% on his pension (claiming the Silver Star) or get all his kids into a military academy for free (MOH), then there is problem. As a retired veteran, I even take offense with the guy that would be sitting in a parade wearing items that he was not entitled to and I have seen guys wearing items in uniform (commissioned officers no less) just to pick up chicks, but you're never going to stop those individuals from doing stupid sh1t like this. Certainly does no good to make laws to punish everyone, when you can't or won't hold those offenders accountable for their individual actions.

Paul is correct, the MOH was never supposed to be an item that could be purchased or traded. Only authorized manufacturers could produce these and a person could only get them through authorized channels once the documentation was checked for proper entitlement. Years ago, it was technically illegal to buy US decorations. You had to trade them in either US silver coins or commemorative stamps. This was how guys like Sydney Vernon had to conduct business so, from a collecting point of view, it had gotten better over the years.

This law was poorly written (typical these days) and only added unnecessary confusion to the collecting community and sellers that wanted to trade in these items, not illegally wear them or claim any type of compensation related to supposedly earning them. The problem I see now is that you can legally buy/sell these items, including the MOH, on overseas dealer sites and foreign collectors can keep these in their private collections with no issues, but not in the US. That, to me, is a double-standard.

Anyway, I think we all stand on the same merits here and none of us would have much use for an individual wearing a military award they did not earn.

Cheers!

Tim

Edited August 21, 2010 by Tim B

[Paul R]

The problem I see now is that you can legally buy/sell these items, including the MOH, on overseas dealer sites and foreign collectors can keep these in their private collections with no issues, but not in the US. That, to me, is a double-standard.

Well written Tim. I agree with you on all points made in your posting. There should be hefty penalties for people who are robbing the system for their own gain. These crimes are far from victimless, as they take away from those who truly qualify and NEED them to live.

The double-standard is utterly impossible to correct. There is nothing that can be done about these medals being made/sold/worn overseas. However... the same standard is being broken by those of us who collect Soviet Orders and Medals. I think that there are still severe penalties (huge monetary fines as well as prison time) for those of us who take items like the Order of Lenin out of Russia(I know that there USED to be).

[Tim B]

Hi Paul,

Yes, I was going to mention the fact that other countries have lost many of their documented groups to "foreign" collectors worldwide as well. I wonder, now that many of those countries have better economic conditions and more people are interested in their historical past, that we may see prices increase and items harder and harder to acquire. Like you said, the former Soviet Union now prohibits many of it's awards from being removed from the country. I could forsee other countries adopting that view, at least on the more substantial orders and decorations.

Tim

[Doc Wilson]

Well from my side of the street... the SVA is needed... especially in the Veterans community... to many posers out there.

I could tell stories of the Force Recon Ranger Scuba Sniper I pounded on while in Benning (never lie to another ranger - Robert Rogers even wrote that rule down) .... but that isn't the point. There are some things that are sacred ( at least to me there is). Sometimes a line does need to be drawn in the sand.

[JPL]

Here is the latest on this topic:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an earlier ruling made last summer by a three-judge panel of the full circuit court. It determined that the law was in contravention of the First Amendment right to free speech and didn't come within any existing exceptions, that related to speech considered hateful or defamatory. It is reported that dozens of people have been tried and convicted of violating the federal law, most of which were sentenced to community service. Judge Kozinski's opinion included the following, "Saints may always tell the truth, but for mortals living means lying.” Alvarez's statements were untrue and yet, harmless to anyone but himself, as claims of winning the Medal of Honor are easily verified. Using another comparison to hateful speech that shocks the conscience of patriots, Kozinski wrote that the Stolen Valor Act could not possibly cover more egregious behavior than flag burning or using nasty words to ridicule the deceased at a military funeral. That final reference is to the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Westboro Baptist Church case, in which the Court upheld the right of members of a congregation to picket military funerals and use distressing and vile language aimed at the family and the fallen soldier. In that case, the Court ruled that the taunts on picketers signs were protected speech. It overturned a civil jury verdict for millions in damages awarded to Albert Snyder, the father of a fallen soldier Lance Cpl Matthew Snyder who claimed intentional infliction of emotional distress. Writing for the 8-1 majority on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts said, "As a nation we have chosen...to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case." According to reports of the Alvarez decision, seven members of the 26-judge Ninth Circuit panel dissented, voting not to overturn the conviction. With that many judges taking an opposite position to the majority, some legal experts predict that the case will land in the lap of the Supreme Court. Whether the Court will choose to hear the case is unknown at this time and in the event that Alvarez is chosen for a hearing, the decision in the Westboro Church case will have some weight in the minds of the justices.

Read the complete article: http://www.huliq.com/10061/judge-equates-claiming-medal-honor-dating-site-fib

Jean-Paul

[TS Allen]

All,

I realize that some things are sacred, but I think the sacred above all things are the rights enshrined in our Constitution. Those enough who serve or have served in the US military all took an oath to uphold and defend that document - it's an oath that I take seriously. I'm no far-out whackjob making a political statement as has become disgustingly fashionable, I'm a professional who works at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief to do what our country needs. While I love the Army with all my soul, I'd resign, demobilize, and disarm the moment the Army was a threat to the American idea and to that document.

While I don't think the threat from the Stolen Valor Act was by any means existential, it was also not minor. The act was blatantly unconstitutional, based on the interpretations of generations of scholars, as the court case we're now discussing proved. Such minor transgressions against liberty are the only threat the remains to a system as loved and well-defended as ours. We should applaud those responsible for this action.

More importantly, I think the title of the law is misleading. One cannot steal valor. While our decorations may be sacred, in the end even the hallowed Ranger tab is just a scrap of cloth, your Airborne wings are just a chunk of metal (even if you pounded the pins into your chest on the jump zone), and the vaunted Medal of Honor is just a piece of blue ribbon and a dong. The value of these decorations is in the sweat and blood that earned them, and the glory they forever enshrine. Pinning them on is meaningless to a man who has never experienced what they mean. Those who try to steal valor are only stealing a warrior's credit, and while I will denounce them as they must be, if the cost of preventing their theft is to transgress against our fundamental beliefs, I'd rather let the sorry posers be.

V/r,

~TS

[TS Allen]

All,

I realize that some things are sacred, but I think the sacred above all things are the rights enshrined in our Constitution. Those enough who serve or have served in the US military all took an oath to uphold and defend that document - it's an oath that I take seriously. I'm no far-out whackjob making a political statement as has become disgustingly fashionable, I'm a professional who works at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief to do what our country needs. While I love the Army with all my soul, I'd resign, demobilize, and disarm the moment the Army was a threat to the American idea and to that document.

While I don't think the threat from the Stolen Valor Act was by any means existential, it was also not minor. The act was blatantly unconstitutional, based on the interpretations of generations of scholars, as the court case we're now discussing proved. Such minor transgressions against liberty are the only threat the remains to a system as loved and well-defended as ours. We should applaud those responsible for this action.

More importantly, I think the title of the law is misleading. One cannot steal valor. While our decorations may be sacred, in the end even the hallowed Ranger tab is just a scrap of cloth, your Airborne wings are just a chunk of metal (even if you pounded the pins into your chest on the jump zone), and the vaunted Medal of Honor is just a chunk of metal on a piece of blue ribbon. The value of these decorations is in the sweat and blood that earned them, and the glory they forever enshrine. Pinning them on is meaningless to a man who has never experienced what they mean. Those who try to steal valor are only stealing a warrior's credit, and while I will denounce them as they must be, if the cost of preventing their theft is to transgress against our fundamental beliefs, I'd rather let the sorry posers be.

V/r,

~TS

[JPL]

This topic continues in the US Federal courts. Here is the latest article on this topic:

Feds Ask Supreme Court to Validate Stolen Valor Act

The Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to uphold a 2006 law making it a criminal offense to lie about being decorated for military service.

The Stolen Valor Act makes it unlawful to falsely represent, 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.”

A federal appeals court declared the law unconstitutional last year (.pdf). The measure imposes penalties of up to a year in prison.

The issue before the justices comes from the San Francisco–based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled if it were to uphold the law, “then there would be no constitutional bar to criminalizing lying about one’s height, weight, age, or financial status on Match.com or Facebook, or falsely representing to one’s mother that one does not smoke, drink alcoholic beverages, is a virgin, or has not exceeded the speed limit while driving on the freeway.”

The case the Justice Department asked the high court to review concerned defendant Xavier Alvarez. In 2007, he claimed that as a Marine, he had won the Congressional Medal of Honor. He made that public statement during a local Los Angeles suburban water board meeting, in which he had just won a seat on its board of directors.

The government said Alvarez should be prosecuted because the speech fits into the “narrowly limited” classes of speech, such as defamation, that is historically unprotected by the First Amendment. Congress, when adopting the law, said fraudulent claims about military honors “damage the reputation and meaning of such decorations and medals.”

Alvarez was the first person ever charged and convicted under the act, which has ensnared dozens of defendants. Alvarez pleaded guilty, was fined $5,000 and ordered to perform 416 hours of community service. He appealed his conviction to the 9th Circuit.

The justices did not immediately decide whether to hear the government’s petition, filed last Thursday.

Here is the link to the article: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/08/stolen-valor-act-2/

Jean-Paul

[army historian]

The decision of the so called "Justice Department" is what is the problem is in this country. In stead of giving the law back to congress to clean up, they blindly challenge the correct decision. Typical stupid politically correct thinking in action. I think the people should read more about what Thomas Jefferson's was thinking. Cheers Captain Albert

[peter monahan]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire didn't actually say it in those words, but it's what he meant. Yes, it means we have to let French Canadian 'separatists' who have been democratically elected to our national parliament try to dissolve the very country they have been elected to help rule. Sadly, it also means we have to let hateful people say hateful things, whether to gays, 'other races' or the families of thbiose who gave their lives to defend, among other things, the right to say what they want.

"Bad cases make bad law." The SVA seems to me to be a classic example of this truism: using an axe to swat a fly. Common sense, sadly not as common as common as one thinks, and using our own freedom of speech, are a far more effective answer to both demogogues and glory thieves. Unfortunately, they are slower and a lot more work than leaning on our legislators every time somebody does something we disapprove of. Rights never come free and clear. The phrase is, and must be, "rights AND responsibilities" and part of the responsibility is making sure that the liers and thieves get called on their actions.

Unless American legislators are an order of magnitude brighter and more logical than any others in the world, I won't give them carte blanche to do my thinking for me! Without getting into cases, its no secret that lawmakers vote on laws they've never actually read all the way through. [see Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Affair for examples.] Let's put the SVA to bed and instead scream long and loud, or even pound on, the valour thieves. Shouldn't be hard to get an audience!

My two cents worth.

Peter

[JPL]

Here is yet another update on this topic:

The Supreme Court said that it would decide whether a federal law making it a crime to lie about being awarded a military medal or decoration violated free-speech rights.

The justices agreed to review a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the "Stolen Valor Act" passed by Congress in 2006 because the law went too far in infringing on constitutional freedom-of-speech protections.

Read the complete news story here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/17/us-usa-military-medals-idUSTRE79G3F720111017

Jean-Paul

[PKeating]

Maybe the Feds are worried about being sued for confiscating valuable medals and groups from dealers and collectors?

[Ulsterman]

Doubtful-they enjoy Federal immunity unless Congress waives it- and they wouldn't do that for a bunch of "war lovin nuts" who don't even have a lobbyist.

[JPL]

A huge number of news articles have appeared lately as the Supreme Court hears arguments on this important issue. A decision is expected in a couple of months.

Here is a link to one such news story: http://www.q13fox.com/news/la-na-court-lies-20120223,0,3711110.story

Jean-Paul

[Hauptmann]

As far as the posers... if society still worked as it used to then when found out such individuals would, especially in this day and age of the net and such, be branded as liars, cheats and frauds and would be shamed into oblivion! Seems thought that more and more anything goes in todays society. If it feels good, do it!

But a comment on the MoH. I really feel cheated as a collector of ODM's, and am American that whereas I can own and collect ODM's from all over the world including the highest, either as originals or, in the case of things like the Victoria Cross replicas due to the extreme value of such awards... but I cannot even own a replica of a MoH in my collection. Whereas if I was living overseas I could buy and own same. I would love to have examples from each branch of the MoH in my collection. In fact, I was offered one about twenty five years ago... an original but unawarded example. Stupid me, I passed on it... I've regretted it ever since. I strongly feel that examples that were not awarded or nicely done replicas but well marked as such on the reverse or something similar should be legalized and made available for U.S. collectors. This is part of our history... the history of our military, our heroes that we are forbidden to have in our collections. Every time I see either an original or replica of same for sale or in a collection overseas I feel cheated. I can honor the heroes of all the other nations in my collection... but no my own.

Hang the posers for all I care but American collectors should have the same right to own examples of the MoH as those in other countries... in fact we should have more right to do so.

Sorry if this upsets anyone... but it's something I've felt for a long time. Yes, anything can be misused and abused... be it guns, knives, cop uniforms, ODM's, etc. But it's not the item itself, it's the person behind it. Deal with the offender. But sadly, time and time and time again our stupid government insists on throwing the baby out with the bath water in trying to regular morality. It simply is not that easy. But I don't think they'll ever learn.

Dan :cheers: