Page 1 of 2
OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:56 pm
by Bullwinkle58
Offered purely as a service to forumites with interest. No further comment will be made by this OP.
Today, when the decision on the ACA dominated the news, the US Supreme Court also ruled in the Alvarez case on the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act, the subject of a recent thread here. The SVA was found to be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.
The decision can be read at
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11 ... 10d4e9.pdf
From the syllabus of the decision:
". . . (b) The Act seeks to control and suppress all false statements on this one subject in almost limitless times and settings without regardto whether the lie was made for the purpose of material gain. Permitting the Government to decree this speech to be a criminal offensewould endorse government authority to compile a list of subjects about which false statements are punishable. That governmental power has no clear limiting principle. Pp. 10−11.
(c) The Court applies the “most exacting scrutiny” in assessing content-based restrictions on protected speech. Turner Broadcasting System Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 642. The Act does not satisfy that scrutiny. While the Government’s interest in protecting the integrity of the Medal of Honor is beyond question, the First Amendment requires that there be a direct causal link between the restriction imposed and the injury to be prevented. Here, that link has not been shown. The Government points to no evidence supporting its claim that the public’s general perception of military awards is diluted byfalse claims such as those made by respondent. And it has not shown, and cannot show, why counterspeech, such as the ridicule respondent received online and in the press, would not suffice to achieve its interest.
In addition, when the Government seeks to regulate protectedspeech, the restriction must be the “least restrictive means among available, effective alternatives.” Ashcroft, 542 U. S., at 666. Here, the Government could likely protect the integrity of the militaryawards system by creating a database of Medal winners accessibleand searchable on the Internet, as some private individuals have already done. Pp. 12−18. . . .
. . . KENNEDY, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which KAGAN, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined."
RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:13 pm
by AW1Steve
Freedom of speach , which may NOT be practiced by those on active military service , has been preserved for those who would most disgrace us with it's use. It may be a victory for freedom, but for some reason I feel very, very sick to my stomach. [:(]
RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:56 pm
by jetjockey
Today shall be remembered as a very sad day. This ruling does not protect Free Speech, only some free speech.
RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:16 pm
by oldman45
I needed a shower after I read it on line.
RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:42 am
by Commander Stormwolf
a free man speaks
a servant obeys
RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:16 am
by witpqs
Considering the full day's rulings, Congress could just pass a law that taxes such false speech.
RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:55 am
by geofflambert
Libel laws here are so much weaker than in Britain, and I'm sure there's lots of good reasons for that, but I would posit that such lying bs harms real veterans and they should be able to sue such people for damages, regardless of whether a prosecutor can bring a criminal charge or not.
edit: the prosecutor, being of sound mind and sympathetic to veterans who are typically very shy about talking about their service and often find even the memories of it extremely painful, while not being able to develop a case for prosecution, could make sure that there is iron clad evidence against the perp that will make it into court for said suits.
RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:16 am
by Canoerebel
I haven't read this decision or any of the others, because I spent 25 years as a lawyer and three in law school, and I'm done reading things lawyer's write.
However, I suspect that there are plenty of laws out there to curb most of the activity that would be truly harmful in committing fraud by holding out oneself [oops, that sounds like lawyer talk] to be a veteran or to have earned recognition (medals) when you hadn't. Fraud would cover anything done for gain. Perjury would cover others.
People who misrepresent who they are a sad little puppies. Just like people who burn our flag. But as long as they aren't stealing anything doing it or otherwise committing criminal behavior, let them be sad little puppies. If they are stealing or committing a crime, there's laws out there to get 'em whether or not there's a Stolen Valor Act.
RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 am
by rockmedic109
An ex-partner of mine was arrested under the stolen valor act. I am not perfectly clear on the actual details but he obtained a decoration and then wrote up a citation. He put it on a wall at his home. He was a USMC veteran. His new wife/girlfriend looked at it and wanted to have something special done and contacted someone in the military for some reason which is how it came to light. A sad situation. I knew him well. His life was forever changed and he lost his new new dream job. I have not seen him since.
I know that he did not ever use it for personal gain, but he still crossed the line. Unconstitutional or not, he has been punished. Punished enough? I cannot claim to know the answer and not having served in the military, I cannot in good conscience make that judgement.
A very sad situation. The sheer embarrassment has to be enormous. I will always have fond memories of working with him. He was a great partner and I do not always extend that word to the people I work with. But he crossed the line and I could not support or defend him. There is no doubt in my mind that he would've performed with bravery if ever in the position where it was needed. While I cannot support or defend his action, I hope that he is able to get on with the rest of his life and I wish him the best.
RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:32 am
by treespider
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
However, I suspect that there are plenty of laws out there to curb most of the activity that would be truly harmful in committing fraud by holding out oneself [oops, that sounds like lawyer talk] to be a veteran or to have earned recognition (medals) when you hadn't. Fraud would cover anything done for gain. Perjury would cover others.
...
If they are stealing or committing a crime, there's laws out there to get 'em whether or not there's a Stolen Valor Act.
I work with prosecutors daily. I believe one of the uses/intents/benefits (cannot think of the appropriate word) of the law would have been to give prosecutors a clearly defined violation with which they could pursue prosecution.
Without the law, investigators are now forced to try and convince prosecutors to use legal theory in the application of the fraud statutes, the theory being that the misrepresentation somehow allowed the individual to benefit from their actions. In many cases I suspect the "benefit" is not direct and would be difficult to prove...which would result in a prosecutors reluctance to pursue charges. With the law the misrepresentation alone would have been the violation.
In the case of perjury and/or false statements the individual would have been sworn and subsequently lied to the court or an agent of the government...the elements of which would make the case much easier to prove.
RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:34 am
by Hermit
One hope remains. The decision was 6-3, but the two justices concurring left room open to switching sides if some changes were made. I'd encourage everyone to contact their Congressman to re-enact the legislation, adopting the changes suggested by Justice Breyer. That may result in a new case with a 5-4 opinion upholding the revised statute.
RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:43 am
by Historiker
Do I get it right, that manufacture and sale of medals is forbidden as well? So if I want a medal of honor replica to have it at home with some other potentially bought medals - because maybe I am a collector - I am committing a crime in the US?
RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:18 pm
by crsutton
I personally don't have a problem with the decision. Medal or no, you can't steal valor from anyone. The law was not necessary.
RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:32 pm
by USSAmerica
ORIGINAL: Historiker
Do I get it right, that manufacture and sale of medals is forbidden as well? So if I want a medal of honor replica to have it at home with some other potentially bought medals - because maybe I am a collector - I am committing a crime in the US?
I've not heard that before, but never tried to buy or make a medal. [:D]
RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:34 pm
by USSAmerica
ORIGINAL: crsutton
I personally don't have a problem with the decision. Medal or no, you can't steal valor from anyone. The law was not necessary.
I agree, cr. Seeing frauds like that does make me sick to my stomach, but that by itself is not against the law. If it were, there would be plenty more people in jail. [:D]
RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:04 pm
by Califvol
This was a case of an individual that ran for office (a local water district seat) that based their presentation to the public that they were a combat veteran that earned the MOH. The facts released to the public after the election were he did not earn the MOH, was NOT in combat, and never was in the military. The Stolen Valor Act was used to remove this filth from office. I would take an opposite position to the Court that there was no damage and hence no crime. There was plenty of damage when somebody gets elected to represent the people with a falsified combat recorded that was carefully presented part of the election process. This goes beyond puffery it was out and out defrauding the electorate. But that’s IMO, obviously SCOTUS has the only opinion on this issue that matters.
Next, owing to the logic of this ruling the next time I read about anybody anywhere being a combat vet with honors I am forced to say- prove it. Show me you’re DD-214. Hell, at this rate somebody would think they could be on American Idol lying through their teeth about a combat record and awards.
Last, oddly, lying about medals to get into office is a protected area of speech BUT telling the truth by holding a sign up to indicate there is a speed trap ahead is NOT protected speech; even though such act is being done as a protest:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/speed-trap-sig ... d=16670386
RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:37 pm
by Sardaukar
ORIGINAL: Califvol
This was a case of an individual that ran for office (a local water district seat) that based their presentation to the public that they were a combat veteran that earned the MOH. The facts released to the public after the election were he did not earn the MOH, was NOT in combat, and never was in the military. The Stolen Valor Act was used to remove this filth from office. I would take an opposite position to the Court that there was no damage and hence no crime. There was plenty of damage when somebody gets elected to represent the people with a falsified combat recorded that was carefully presented part of the election process. This goes beyond puffery it was out and out defrauding the electorate. But that’s IMO, obviously SCOTUS has the only opinion on this issue that matters.
Next, owing to the logic of this ruling the next time I read about anybody anywhere being a combat vet with honors I am forced to say- prove it. Show me you’re DD-214. Hell, at this rate somebody would think they could be on American Idol lying through their teeth about a combat record and awards.
Last, oddly, lying about medals to get into office is a protected area of speech BUT telling the truth by holding a sign up to indicate there is a speed trap ahead is NOT protected speech; even though such act is being done as a protest:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/speed-trap-sig ... d=16670386
+1 with this
RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:39 pm
by mdiehl
I personally don't have a problem with the decision. Medal or no, you can't steal valor from anyone. The law was not necessary.
Agree with that entirely.
RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:49 pm
by Sardaukar
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
I personally don't have a problem with the decision. Medal or no, you can't steal valor from anyone. The law was not necessary.
Agree with that entirely.
While not USian or expert in law, that law seemed to be bit poorly made. Maybe someone will come up with better one.
Still, decision is encouraging all sorts of frauds to advance themselves.
RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:13 pm
by mdiehl
ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
While not USian or expert in law, that law seemed to be bit poorly made. Maybe someone will come up with better one.
Still, decision is encouraging all sorts of frauds to advance themselves.
I guess I'd say I share your distaste for the people who do it. But we're up to our necks in shady characters, on a global scale. I can think of 100 more pressing issues for the US Congress to deal with rather than muck around with limitations on liberties discussed in the Bill of Rights. Just my take on things. This is all of course highly political discussion, so I'll say no more.