Well, there’s no such actual thing as “stealing valor”. Stolen from whom? Those that are legitimately awarded honors for genuine acts of valor are not diminished in any way by some drunk in a bar claiming to be a SEAL with a navy cross. The drunk dishonors himself, and himself only.
Sure, the drunk should be outed and humiliated for making such claims. Rightly so. But it serves no purpose and protects no one to send him to jail for it. Better... hopefully there’s a ~real~ SEAL at the ~other~ end of the bar that can work some better sense into the guy. :-)
“Those that are legitimately awarded honors for genuine acts of valor are not diminished in any way by some drunk in a bar claiming to be a SEAL with a navy cross.”
I disagree. Whenever I see someone behaving badly who represents a whole group of people, my opinion of the entire group is diminished. This for example, is why I have a very low opinion of L.A. Dodger fans. But I digress.
I think it serves the purpose of making the statement that there are some things our society won’t tolerate and this is one of them.
And you didn’t respond to my main point/question to you. How do you respond to this part of my post?:
“Because they (perjury, fraud) are defined as such in the law. And in these cases a specific type of LYING is specifically deemed illegal. But here the Court is saying you CANT separately define a previously unspecified type of lying as a specific unlawful type of lying, based on the First Amendment. Dont you see thats not logically consistent? Either all lying is protected by the Constitution, or else the government has the right to apply names (like fraud and perjury and stolen valor) to some types of lying, thereby making them illegal. Which is it?”
I disagree. The valor is stolen from the reputation of real SEAL's. They ARE diminished, because a person who sees someone he believes to be a SEAL behaving badly, will, naturally, be inclined to question the character of all SEAL's. Especially if he sees such behavior more frequently. Hey, we all know, you shouldn't "stereotype" and assume everyone in a group is bad, just because you see one bad apple. But when you begin seeing repeated instances, you can't help but draw conclusions.
"But it serves no purpose and protects no one to send him to jail for it."
Seems to me like it would serve the purpose of making the behavior pretty-near non-existent. The losers would figure out another well-respected profession to fraudulently claim to be, but probably a private one, not needing or deserving laws to protect their reputation. Now, if the guy that spawned this case is the only guy in 100 years to do it, it's probably not necessary.
BTW, I know it's unusual to respond to a post after so much time has passed, but I've been away from FR for a variety of reasons, and just now read your post. Hope you don't mind.
Oops. Sorry. My mistake. I had indeed already responded.