Replies

If you look back through some older threads on the Stolen Valor Act, you'll find there were plenty of FReepers who saw this strictly as a First Amendment/Freedom of Speech issue. I argued against them on a number of threads being strongly pro-SVA, but the main thrust of their argument was that lying, in and of itself, is not a crime (and that much I agree with them). They argue that if it's done with the intent to fraudulently obtain something of monetary value, existing fraud laws already cover that, and I also agree with them in that regard as well.

My contention is that not all things of worth can be expressed in monetary terms, and military service, and the recognition thereof, is not only one such thing, but needs to be given special consideration based on its essential role in preserving our society. Falsely claiming such recognition undermines the recognition bestowed upon the legitimate medal awardees in much the same way the holder of a counterfeit $100 bill victimizes every holder of a legitimate $100 bill.

Above and beyond that, it is my contention that as military medals, skills badges, tabs, etc. presuppose an extensive orders process, falsely claiming such should fall in the same category as forging or falsifying any other offical government record.

I'm sure you and I have run across each other on such threads. I'm one that claims that it's a 1st amendment issue and a fraud issue, if used to claim value.

One thing the Stupid Supremes didn't do is say I can't point and laugh and make fun of and advertise those that steal valor from the brave guys that earned those medals.

We just have to catch them and make their life miserable.

I was a cook, last enlistment, spooky first time around. That's it. I have a chest full of ribbons, but 2 of them are staying enlisted and not getting arrested ribbons (Good Conduct).

The value of military honors has been diminshing over the years.

/johnny

I have to admit that I am one of those persons to whom you referring. However, I did read Allito dissent. I agree with his opinion in as long as the law is narrowly crafted, I have no issue with it, and Allito thought that it was sufficiently crafted to address only these issues. The Per Curiam opinion argued that law was not, and not that lying was free speech, but that the law could interfer with the exercise thereof. Allito said that, if I read his dissent correctly, that the courts could provide relief to those whose legitimate speech is affected.