Law against posing as a war hero is unconstitutional, Colorado judge rules

Washington Post / AP ^ | July 17, 2010

[Former Military Chick]

A law that makes it illegal to lie about being a war hero is unconstitutional because it violates free speech, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn dismissed a case against Rick Glen Strandlof, who claimed he was an ex-Marine who was wounded in Iraq and received the Purple Heart and the Silver Star. The military had no record that Strandlof had ever served, and he was charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to falsely claim to have won a military medal.

Blackburn ruled that the government did not show it has a compelling reason to restrict that type of statement.

[P-Marlowe]

The guy knowingly made a misrepresentation of fact in order to obtain a social gain. That pretty much meets the definition of fraud and fraud has never before been considered as protected speech.

So is claiming you are a surfer or wearing a padded bra.

Does Congress have the right to make those fraudulent claims a crime?

If so, under what section and under what clause?

[sirchtruth]

Under what provision in the Constitution does Congress have the power to make such a law?

I can't believe this is even a discussion? For Goodness sakes, do you have any common sense? I have an idea! Let's all say we were in the service and received purple hearts so we can go on disability and reap the Gov't benefits.

Can you think of a reason why we all shouldn't be able to do this under the constitution?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Congress shall make no law....

What part of that clause do they not understand?

Look who wrote the law, democrat John Salazar. He just voted for the Disclose Act, which would shut everyone up but the left during the election.

He's playing on the emotions of people who are rightfully angered when someone claims military heroism when they aren't entitled to but the law doesn't require harm to anyone, it can be prosecuted on speech only. It's a bad precedent if it's upheld because it opens the door to make other kinds of speech a crime and that's exactly what liberals like Salazar will do.

Go after this guy for fraud, it appears that's what he committed.

[Mr. Lucky]

In your world, then, the guy would have been free to wear a badge and claim to be an FBI agent or maybe a lab coat and stethoscope and claim to be a gynecologist.

[P-Marlowe]

I can't believe this is even a discussion? For Goodness sakes, do you have any common sense?

Well it is the discussion because the judge ruled that the law was not constitutional.

So, tell me, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, under what section and Clause does Congress have the authority to pass a law making it a crime to pretend you were a war hero?

Everyone here seems to think this judge is an idiot, but the fact of the matter is that he seems to be more of a clear thinking constitutionalist than most of the posters on this thread. Yourself included.

So answer the questions or admit that what the judge did was constitutionally correct.

Can you think of a reason why we all shouldn't be able to do this under the constitution?

Yeah, its called the First Amendment. You can do it. You would be a creep if you did, but being a creep is not generally a federal crime.

[Siena Dreaming]

He's playing on the emotions of people who are rightfully angered when someone claims military heroism when they aren't entitled to but the law doesn't require harm to anyone, it can be prosecuted on speech only

Yep, Salazar's likely intent is to open the door to Canadian-type speech laws using military to do it, knowing that conservatives will fall for it just like they are doing on this thread.

This judge was too smart for him and smacked it down.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Let's all say we were in the service and received purple hearts so we can go on disability and reap the Gov't benefits.

If someone does that then they can be prosecuted for fraud if it isn't true. But if all he does is say such a thing without causing harm then his punishment should not be criminal, public shunning and ridicule is enough otherwise the door is open to criminalize any kind of speech.

[microgood]

Are you one who believes in Freedom Of Speech without responsibility.

Yes, mainly because I do not trust either side to decide what is "responsible speech". There are immutable principles like the 1st Amendment so that we do not live under pure democracy, which is basically mob rule.

Unless you are yelling "Fire" in a theater, you are free to lie about who you are and what you are, as long as that is not facilitating some other crime, in which case you can be arrested for that crime.

[P-Marlowe]

In your world, then, the guy would have been free to wear a badge and claim to be an FBI agent or maybe a lab coat and stethoscope and claim to be a gynecologist.

If he claimed to be a current FBI agent on a case, then he would be guilty of a felony (obstruction of justice). If he claimed to be a former FBI agent or if he just pretended to be an FBI agent for the purpose of impressing some chick at a bar, then there is no crime.

I am as pissed off at this guy as any of you, I just don't think the Federal Government has the authority to make lying about former military service a crime.

If you think I'm wrong, then tell me what section and what clause of the constitution gives the congress the authority to make it a crime to pretend you were a war hero.

Maybe I'm wrong. Prove me wrong.

[sirchtruth]

Where in the constitution does it give Congress the right to make it a federal crime to tell a lie?

OMG, it's fraud! It has nothing to do with the constitution other than the fact it is irresponsible and should be treated as a criminal act. Lying is subject to contempt in a court of law. Raise your right hand.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

This judge was too smart for him and smacked it down.

Hopefully the USSC does the same thing if Holder appeals it.

[P-Marlowe]

OMG, it's fraud!

So is wearing a padded bra or pretending you are a surfer when you are not (see The Beach Boys).

Fraud is not generally a crime unless you do it for the purpose of stealing someone's money. If you do it so that you can impress chicks, it is constitutionally protected speech.

Lying is speech as much as telling the truth. If this guy had committed Criminal Fraud by pretending to be a war hero for the purpose of getting someone to give him money, then he could and should be prosecuted for criminal fraud. But there are already laws on the books about that.

[centurion316]

The law is flawed because it included making verbal claims to unearned decorations a criminal offense. You and the judge agree that this is not constitutional.

I believe that the government has an obligation to protect the integrity of its honors and decoration systems. Decorations are a gift of the sovereign state to recognize acts of heroic and meritorious nature. The government can protect the physical decorations themselves from improper and fraudulent display and should do so in order to protect those whom it has recognized. The first and most important thing that the government should do is to assemble and publish a database of legitimate awards. All of the extant databases are incomplete and were built by non-government entities, they are not official, excepting the Center for Military History’s Medal of Honor database.

Just a people can be prohibited from using the Apple logo without Apple’s permission, so too can the government proscribe improper use of its decorations. Whether the penalty can be criminal or civil, I leave to others to decide.

[sirchtruth]

You don’t get this do you? What will happen to you if you lie to the US senate during your testimony? Do you know?
Lying in fact is totally irresponsible and should be treated as a crime under certain circumstances. It is fraud under all circumstances. Why is it a crime to impersonate an officer of the law?

[P-Marlowe]

Just a people can be prohibited from using the Apple logo without Apple’s permission, so too can the government proscribe improper use of its decorations.

Perhaps, but under what Constitutional Authority? What section and what clause gives Congress the power to make the wearing or possession of a medal you did not earn a criminal offense?

[bvw]

Two big picture general rules apply here.

(1) The less laws the better.

(2) Don’t pass a law to criminalize bad social behavior when social pressures will or can achieve the same result.

Net out: this is a bad law.

[P-Marlowe]

You don’t get this do you? What will happen to you if you lie to the US senate during your testimony?

It's called perjury and it is against the law. If you testified falsely about your medals or your military career UNDER OATH before the Senate, you are guilty of perjury. If you testify before the Senate that you are a surfer and you are not, you are also guilty of perjury.

This law prohibits someone from telling anyone a lie about his military service for any purpose. Hence it is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL infringement upon free speech.

You are arguing with an attorney, my friend. I get it. You don't.

Lying in fact is totally irresponsible and should be treated as a crime under certain circumstances.

Buying a $50 cigar is irresonsible too. Should that be a federal crime because it is irresponsible? Eating twinkies is irresponsible. Should we make that a federal crime? There are a lot of things people do that are irresponsible and even reprehensible (such as cheating on your spouse) but should we then make it the business of the Federal Government to make all of our irresponsible actions a Federal Crime?

How is your position on this any different than the Liberals who want to make it a crime to smoke a cigarette in your own home, or to drive an SUV?

You are encouraging the nanny state. You don't realize it because you can't think past your own nose, but maybe you should step back and maybe you can see that this law is just another step on the road to tyranny.

Why is it a crime to impersonate an officer of the law?

Because if you do it for the purpose of interfering with a criminal investigation or convincing someone else that you are acting under the color of authority, then it is a crime. If you are doing it for the purpose of impressing some idiot at a bar, then in nearly all circumstances it would not be a crime. Most crimes (even that of impersonating an officer) have an element of "intent". If the intent element is not met, then there is no crime.

[centurion316]

Under what Constitutional authority is property protected? Under what Constitutional authority can we proscribe fraudulent representations that provide tangible and intangible benefits to the perpetrator?

We have many such laws today and they have stood Constitutional scrutiny. Such a law can be crafted that does not tread on the 1st Amendment.

[sirchtruth]

but under what Constitutional Authority?

It's not about constitutional authority, it's about common sense. The reason this country is in the mess it's in is because people like you think you should do whatever you please without any responsibility or accountability as long as it does not violate the constitution. Look, smoking dope doesn't violate the constitution, but if you go get high and it leads to you killing someone should we let you go smoke more dope because the constitution doesn't prevent it? We're talking about common sense here not the constitutionally of lying.

The judge didn't rule necessarily unconstitutionally, he ruled foolishly, and most of the time this is twice as bad.

[haroldeveryman]

It’s fraud if in doing so, the liar seeks material gain at the expense of the lie-ee. For example, what if an alien runs for president under the pretense of being a U.S. citizen?