Free speech vs. lying? Supreme Court to rule on Stolen Valor Act

LA Times ^ | October 17, 2011 | David D. Savage

[jazusamo]

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear an important First Amendment case to decide whether the freedom of speech includes a right to lie about military honors.

The justices voted to hear the government’s defense of the Stolen Valor Act, a 5-year-old law that makes it a crime to falsely claim to have earned medals for service in the U.S. armed forces.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year struck down the law on free-speech grounds and said the government cannot act as the “truth police” to punish lies that cause no direct harm.

“The sad fact is, most people lie about some aspects of their lives from time to time,” wrote Judge Milan Smith in a 2-1 decision. “Given our historical skepticism of permitting the government to police the line between truth and falsity, and between valuable speech and drivel, we presumptively protect all speech, including false statements.”

But U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., in his appeal, said that “knowingly false” statements deserve little protection under the First Amendment. He pointed to laws against fraud that punish those who make false promises to obtain money and to laws against defamation that punish those who make false and hurtful claims that damage a person’s reputation.

[omega4412]

The government has a legitimate interest in promoting valor in combat. The traditional way of doing that is awarding medals — not, say, giving someone a corner office with a view. So the government has a legitimate interest in preventing the devaluation of the medals by liars.

[SoldierDad]

There are plenty of us veterans out here to still uncover these frauds

. You identify his actions as fraud, yet, defend those actions? Pity.

[jazusamo]

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

PLEASE CLICK PIC TO DONATE OR BECOME A MONTHLY DONOR

[Retired COB]

The Highest Award(in MY opinion) that I recieved was my 3rd US Navy Good Conduct(12 years)(ONLY Enlisted get it/sorry “Officers”), that enabled me to wear GOLD!

Congratulations!

In my case I had six good conduct awards and a grand total of 26 years of "Undetected Crime".

[Scotsman will be Free]

If they commit the criminal act of fraud(obtaining services, products, property, money, etc through deceit) then prosecute them for that. Those laws are already on the books and have been for many, many years.
Prosecuting some blowhard asshat for telling tall tales is ridiculous.

[Scotsman will be Free]

So if you falsley claim to have gotten an eight point buck and it was really a 4 point should you go to prison?
If your false claim of getting an eight point won you a prize then that is fraud. Merely running your mouth is not.

[Little Bill]

I remember when I was evaced in 1968, I was wearing more stripes than my ID card indicated, temp records. Some ahole LT started yelling impersonation, UCMJ. I was lucky that my real records showed up. This happened to more than a few people.

[Scotsman will be Free]

I agree with you.

[microgood]

As someone who is a retired Marine who has been in combat, I think it's despicable someone would lie about that. But I don't think it's criminal.

Exactly. We used to put people in jail that were a threat to society. Now we also put people in jail that make us mad. That is why we have the world's largest prison population.

As a red-blooded American male, I should be able to go into a bar, tell some girl I got my scar from a firefight in Vietnam (and a Purple Heart) - without having to go to prison (All is fair in love and war).

[Chances Are]

This is a part and parcel of what I refer to as the legal overview of the world, or at least the world as they think it should be.

You know, "OK for me, but not for thee."

And of course, the government, it seems, is run by lawyers who not only get to call the shots and rule govern, but profit very handsomely from the law's administration.

Atlas Shrugged, indeed!

CA....

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Besides the Constitution itself, try reading the Federalist Papers for a better understanding of what the Framer’s intents were."

I have read a large portion of them. Along with the anti federalist papers. And I ask again where does it say the framers of the constitution would outlaw lying to impress someone (which is basically what Alvarez did). You were the one making this assertion about the founders. Where is there even a tangential reference to this in the framer's writings? If you can list it, then I will concede the point and admit I'm wrong. I don't see it and everything I've read, the majority of the founders were interested in getting the forces of government out of our lives. Not creating new laws to restrict the citizenry. Only those laws that are required for the good order of society.

[Brookhaven]

And while we’re at it, we can debate what the meaning of is is.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"There's enormous public purpose served by punishing people for commiting fraud."

I agree. And that's already illegal. They did not prosecute Alvarez for fraud because he did not benefit in any way by his lies.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

If lying is free speech, can I lie on applications for government entitlement programs?

I’ll claim to be an illegal.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"You identify his actions as fraud, yet, defend those actions? Pity."

I did not mean fraud in the legal sense, but merely as another word for lying. Yes, I defend his ability to lie. Because we live in a free country and I don't want to see the speech police watching what everyone says. It's a pity that you want to be part of the speech police.

[Scotsman will be Free]

I’m sorry that you are too stupid to understand the difference between lying for monetary gain(fraud)and just being a blowhard liar. Oh, well.

[TheOldLady]

Click the Bear

Please Donate
Monthly if Possible

[The Shrew]

This judge is using examples that do not corrolate to this case. The above examples have to do with lying and damaging someone else or making money off of it. This Alverez (as far as I know) just lied to impress people. He didn't make any money off of anyone when he claimed to be a CMH recipient or playing hockey for the Detroit Red Wings. As terrible as I think lying about your service and war record is, if it does not damage anyone and you don't benefit by it, you should not be prosecuted for it. I know a lot of my fellow veterans disagree with me. But we fought to protect the first amendment. That's protecting the despicable speech as well as the speech we may agree with. We have to protect it all.

I vehemently disagree with your assertions in this statement. The persons damaged by the lying are not just the people being directly lied to. It is all members of our military both active, former and retired. This is why our SEAL's fight so strongly against frauds and Wannabe's. They know, as we all should, that such acts detract from their status. It isn't just the dimishment of the SEALS, but of all the services.

Remember, the CMOH isn't won - it is awarded. In spite of what Napoleon said about 'little bits of colored cloth' Our medals reflect extraordinary herosim, extraordinary valor, not run-of-the-mill acts. It is vital that this society prevent our most extraordinary acts from being diminished by any slug who wants to use them to get laid or a free drink in a bar.

Read this: Stolen Valor

Semper Fi,

TS

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Remember, the CMOH isn't won - it is awarded."

Actually, the CMH is neither won or awarded. It is received. You are a CMH recipient.

"The persons damaged by the lying are not just the people being directly lied to. It is all members of our military both active, former and retired."

While in one sense I agree with you. In the legal sense, unless your lying gives you some type of tangible gain, it is not fraud or illegal. I agree with the Seals who out these fake seals. I agree with people who out these fake "war heroes". Out them and make a public spectacle of them. Humiliate them, but don't criminalize it. Taking away our freedoms always start with something benign. Something all of us agree on. Then it moves on to something else. Like in Germany today where you can be jailed for extolling the virtues of the Nazis in public. Do we really want to send people to jail just for what they say or think? I don't want to live in a society where the thought and speech police run amok. Today it's stolen valor. Then it will move onto lying about your age to bed some hot chick. It's always a slippery slope. Don't take away citizens freedom of speech. Even if it is lying.

[Brookhaven]

Sure, I understand the difference. Do you understand the difference between freedom and license?

I understand that free speech means someone can burn the flag (or even defecate on it as we’re seeing the OWS doing), but I believe it should still be prohibited, because it dishonors all those past Americans that gave their life to defend out country.

Our military men are often maimed and killed defending our country and freedoms. Medals are the public symbols we give them to acknowledge their bravery and sacrifice to our country. Allowing others to claim the honor without ever having earned it dishonors those that have earned it.

I don’t buy the argument that falsely claiming a medal doesn’t harm anyone. I believe it does. It harms the honor of those that have rightly earned it, and makes us smaller as a nation.

I believe that flag burning laws, and laws against falsely caiming to have received a medal are reasonable. The concept of free speech enshrined in the Constitution was to protect political speech, not braggarts.