Charge dismissed in fake hero's case, Valor Act ruled unconstitutional

Denver Post ^ | 07/16/2010 | Felisa Cardona

[george76]

A federal judge in Denver has ruled the Stolen Valor Act is "facially unconstitutional" because it violates free speech and dismissed the criminal case against Rick Strandlof, a man who lied about being an Iraq war veteran.

"The Stolen Valor Act is declared to be facially unconstitutional as a content-based restriction on speech that does not serve a compelling government interest, and consequently that the Act is invalid as violative of the First Amendment," Blackburn wrote in his opinion.

Strandlof, 32, was charged with five misdemeanors related to violating the Stolen Valor Act - specifically, making false claims about receiving military decorations.

He posed as "Rick Duncan," a wounded Marine captain who received a Purple Heart and a Silver Star. Strandlof used that persona to found the Colorado Veterans Alliance and solicit funds for the organization.

the ACLU of Colorado and the Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties group, all filed briefs with Blackburn contesting the Stolen Valor Act.

They argued that simply lying is not illegal.

The Stolen Valor Act prohibits people from falsely claiming they have been awarded military decorations and medals.

[circlecity]

You could use the same reasoning to strike down defamation laws. It will be interesting to see what the Circuit Court of Appeals says about this.

[Steely Tom]

Maybe a stolen valor “kill switch” will pass muster with the courts.

[dsc]

Know what the difference is between a judge and God?

God doesn’t think he’s a judge.

Where do these leftard scumbags get off, just throwing away any duly enacted law they don’t like? That’s not how it’s supposed to work.

[Hot Tabasco]

I have to agree with the ruling. With that being said, he needs to pursued legally by every organization that fell for his fraud and he needs to be publicly ridiculed on the front page of every newspaper in the area where he lives.......

[FoxInSocks]

An element of fraud is knowingly and intentionally making false representations. Is fraud now protected speech too?

[weeder]

Blackburn was nominated by President George W. Bush on September 10, 2001.
A day later, the world changed.

[skr]

Fraud is free speech?

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"the same reasoning to strike down defamation laws"

Lying about yourself is not the same as lying about someone else.

The courts have found a "compelling government interest" in the past to support anti-defamation laws, which they will most likely continue to support.

[supermop]

Notice that he has never ever served in the U S Armed Services. Too bad.

[smokingfrog]

Piss on you Judge Blackburn!

[editor-surveyor]

Violates his “right to lie?”
.

[William Tell]

Hot Tabasco said: "I have to agree with the ruling."

I do too. The burden is on the government to prove that the infringement is necessary.

The government simply needs to create a registry of award recipients so that the public can verify such claims.

Any funds needed to create and maintain such a registry can easily be obtained by shutting down the BATFE and its infringing registries of various arms.

[muawiyah]

The ruling misses the whole point of the awards. The compelling public interest is that their legitimacy be maintained. If you have frauds going about misrepresenting their status, or if you have other frauds attacking veterans who hold such awards legitimately, that the frauds can get away with their lies disestablishes the legitimacy of the awards.

If the awards are delegitimized, no one will bother to do that which results in their being awarded.

What that means is is some pretty serious stuff.

The federal judge in this case is probably a senile old drooler who failed to enlist when he had the chance. He should simply be removed from the bench by any lawful means.

This is not a free speech issue ~

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"Notice that he has never ever served in the U S Armed Services"

Maybe the government can help people like this. If someone claims to have been in the military, but hasn't, then they get drafted and sent to the front lines.

All free of charge! What more could they ask for?

[editor-surveyor]

” Is fraud now protected speech too?”

.
Is Obama President?
.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"Any funds needed to create and maintain such a registry can easily be obtained by shutting down the BATFE and its infringing registries of various arms."

A twofer!

[george76]

The new normal.

Fraud is free speech?

[circlecity]

"Lying about yourself is not the same as lying about someone else."

But it can be just as bad, as this instance shows. Clearly there is a compelling interest in maintaining the integrity of the military and its awards programs. If anyone can claim to be the recipient of an honor they didn't receive it would lower morale and effect the efficiency of the armed services.

[SpaceBar]

The judge's ruling clearly shows either willful bias, or ignorance of the law. “Freedom of speech” is known to have many legally recognized “exceptions”, yelling fire in a crowded theater being the canonical example. It doesn't trump speech used during the commission of a crime, inciting treason or insurrection, slander, misrepresentation, etc. Claiming “freedom of speech” without qualifying the nature of the speech, context. or harmed parties is what a first semester law student would do.