Posted on 01/13/2016 6:32:03 AM PST by pabianice
SAN FRANCISCO (Tribune News Service) — A federal law that prohibited people from wearing military medals they didn’t earn is unconstitutional for the same reason as a law that made it a crime to lie about earning a medal, a federal appeals court ruled Monday: It’s a falsehood that is protected by freedom of speech.
In an 8-3 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the now-repealed law against wearing unearned military decorations was a ban on a type of “symbolic speech.†Although the government can forbid falsehoods that cause tangible harm, like fraud or perjury, the Constitution restricts government regulation of expression based solely on its content, the court said.
“Suppressing a symbolic communication threatens the same First Amendment harm as suppressing a written communication,†Judge Sandra Ikuta said in the majority opinion. “Wearing a medal has no purpose other than to communicate a message.â€
She cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in 2012 striking down a related law that prohibited lying about receiving a military honor. That 5-4 decision said the law punished speech without requiring proof of intent to defraud, and that the government had other ways of protecting the public from deception — for example, an easily accessible database of legitimate medal recipients.
A year after that ruling, Congress enacted a revised law that makes it a crime to lie about military honors, but only if the liar intended to profit or defraud someone. The new law does not punish someone solely for wearing an unearned medal.
Dissenters from Monday’s ruling said falsely wearing medals is conduct, not speech, and is potentially more harmful than lying about them.
“The wearing of an unearned medal dilutes the message conveyed by the medal itself,†making the public less likely to accept the legitimacy of any medal, said Judge Jay Bybee, who was joined by Judges N. Randy Smith and Paul Watford. “The lie here is told in a more effective way.â€
The ruling came in the case of Elven Swisher, an Idaho man who served in the Marines from 1954 to 1957. In 2001, Swisher filed a claim for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder benefits, saying he had been wounded and traumatized in a secret combat mission in North Korea in 1955, two years after the Korean War ended. He said an unnamed captain had awarded him a Purple Heart and told him he was entitled to other service medals.
After initially rejecting his claim, the government reversed itself and granted Swisher benefits in 2004 for PTSD from the secret mission. The government canceled the benefits in 2006 after concluding that Swisher’s claims about the mission, the harm he suffered and the medals he earned were fraudulent.
In the meantime, Swisher wore his unearned Purple Heart when he testified as a prosecution witness against David Hinkson, convicted in 2005 of plotting to murder three people, including a federal judge. Despite learning of Swisher’s apparent deception, the appeals court later upheld Hinkson’s convictions.
Swisher, who has never recanted his claims, was convicted of the false-medal charge and three other crimes and has served his one-year sentence. His lawyer, Joseph Horras, said Monday’s ruling was a worthwhile expansion of First Amendment protections.
begelko@sfchronicle.com
Wow. That court is terrible.
That’s not free speech—it’s outright deception.
So now fraud is considered free speech? Ok...
Marines (or other military) that stand up and confront a charlatan can now be charged with a hate crime
Maybe they should just walk by, cap 'im, and keep on walkin'
Leave the eyes and accusations to God
Or just ignore them for the losers they are...
We will simply look the other way when some real soldiers take care of the faker behind some corner.
“Take care” = Beat the living s*^t out of him.
Problem solved.
It is a looney court! 9th Circus, indeed.
Is it assault & battery to drench someone with an ice cold bucket of water?
In this case, phony vets. In other cases, militant Muslims.
Thoughts?
Could I wear a uniform and impersonate a police officer? Could I wear boots, a heavy coat and helmet and impersonate a fireman? Could I wear a white coat and stethoscope, and impersonate a doctor? What about a robe and/or any other facial makeup and impersonate a 9th Circuit Court judge? Could I do any of those under the guise of freedom of expression?
I’m sure, hell I’m convinced that ALL of these stolen valor guys are hung like gerbils and they are “compensating” for their “short comings.”
Why else would you do it?
GDit, if you want to wear the F’n uniform, earn it like the rest of us.
But then again I’m sure these guys also have a wall full of “participation trophy’s.”
Yep! Or publicly expose them for the frauds they are. We now have more people claiming to be Vietnam Vets than ever served in country.
The purpose of that ruling was to further destroy the traditions, heritage, and values of the United States of America.With the full approval of a majority of voters in the last two elections, it is now full speed ahead. Throughout history, Militaries of the World have recognized the accomplishments of their members through various means. Awarding medals to them was one of these ways. Rulings such as these cheapen the award to the one that earned it to almost nothing because now every Tom, Dick, and Harry can open a box of Cracker Jacks, go into a pawn shop, go to a yard sale or flea market, or simply order one online. Pin it on their clothes and go strutting around like a Bantam Rooster. the wearing of any medal that is meant to be a military recognizment of achievement, either personal or group should be a criminal offense.
Under the same logic, counterfeit money should be legal. It would be protected free speech or freedom of expression, or whatever.
They are right. Wearing something doesn’t mean it’s fraud. Using it to get something in return because of it, IS FRAUD and then should be charged accordingly.
Having counterfeit money is not illegal. Passing it along to buy something is illegal.
Awarded. Medals are awarded, not earned or won. Ignorant judges.
Why yes, I'm a member of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco....see my black robe?
Disgusting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.