Free Speech Threat: Lying About Being a War Hero a Crime?
Federal courts in California and Colorado are grappling with whether the First Amendment protects those who brag or exaggerate about their past, and specifically lie about being war heroes.
At the center of the two cases against men who claimed to have received a U.S. military medal is the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to lie about such claims, even if the liar doesn't intend to profit from the fib, The Washington Post reports.
The Post quotes George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who argues that the Stolen Valor Act raises constitutional questions because it bans bragging or exaggerating about yourself.
"Half the pickup lines in bars across the country could be criminalized under that concept," he said.
But Craig Missakian, a federal prosecutor in California, countered that deliberate lies aren't protected. He also maintains that Congress has the authority to protect the value and worth of military medals.
Missakian is prosecuting Xavier Alvarez, who has been elected to a seat on a water district board in 2007 when he boasted he was a retired Marine who'd won the Medal of Honor. It turns out Alvarez never served in the military. Alvarez pleaded guilty, but is appealing on the First Amendment question.
Also challenging the law is Colorado resident Rick Glen Strandlof, who'd claimed to be a former Marine wounded in Iraq and awarded the Purple Heart and Silver Star. Military officials have no such record of service, the Post reports. Strandlof has pleaded not guilty.
In January, the Rutherford Institute filed an amicus brief in Strandlof's case, arguing that the law ought to be redrafted so that it's not used to prosecute those who are simply lying.
John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, told the Denver Post that Congress needs to "redraft the law to prove a particularized damage."
"If you run around Denver and yell out, 'I got the Medal of Honor,' you are guilty of the statute the way it is written," Whitehead said.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
In response to the federal prosecutor Missikian's stating that the Congress has the power to create such a law , one would have to counter that the only thing that could justifiably be stated in support of Missikian's position is the expertise of Members of Congress when it comes to lying.
I enjoyed your observation on liars passing laws on lying.
How about a mandatory ten year sentence, without parole, for any politician caught lying?
And, yeah, while I don't personally think well of lying, I agree it's protected speech when no tangible harm results. I'd also argue this kind of law violates equal protection provisions. Isn't it putting a single profession and group above others? Why would it be okay to lie about being a doctor , lawyer, movie star or secret agent, but not a soldier?
(though I lean towards supporting this law ) I have to say, military service should be put above every one of those fields. Serving your country with honor and valour should, IMO, come with the knowledge that the country appreciates your service and will continue to put you on a pedestal above all other citizens.
This missed point that you guys are forgetting is that they aren't charged with simply impersonating a simple jar head... But pretending they earned very prestigious awards that instantly command respect. What worth is it to bestow national honor on someone just to let that distinction become suspect among those that claim to have it.
I agree with Craig Massakian on this. It's the value of those particular honours that should be protected, under threat of criminal prosecution if needs be.
The free speech argument is valid, but I think that in this case, the concerns of the state out weigh the concerns of speech .
Free speech is important and I'm not trying to lower it's value, but allowing this kind of conduct would lower the value of what we call honourable service to your country.
IMO, the right to speak freely is absolute, with the exceptions that have been recognized along the lines of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Libel laws would be another example. At various times, our military has been both idealized and demonized. It would be an understatement to say that public sentiment toward the military today is dramatically different than it was during the Vietnam era.
I've managed to rub people the wrong way during both periods. At the time of Vietnam I thought it was disgraceful that those who served were often treated like dirt. Today, I think it's disgraceful those sorting buttons stateside are treated like conquoring heros. IMO, the truth is somewhere in between the two.
I don't have to like the person who says it, I don't have to agree with their morals or lack thereof, and I certainly don't have to agree with what they say. Never the less, if I don't stick up for their right to say it, I eventually lose my right to do the same. The "concerns of the state" NEVER out weigh the rights of the people. There's no such thing as being a little bit pregnant and the tail goes with the hide. We have lost a LOT over the decades on exactly this kind of issue. There are times when public sentiment is such that it may seem reasonable to infringe on certain rights, but the worm always turns. The right you remove from one person today, is the same right you lose tomorrow.
What if you told some gal in a bar you were the regional manager of Burger King and were recognized as employee of the month, when the truth was you flipped burgers part time and were on the verge of being fired for incompetence?
The regional manager worked hard to earn his position and special recognition. Should you be thrown in jail to protect his honor? I don't think so even if I don't approve of such conduct.
You claim an absolute position and then go on to afford caveats to your position? Clearly there are reasonable exceptions and I think this is one of them.
Companies do not bestow recognition of National honor. If anything, a conservative should recognize the value of honor bestowed by the state upon those that go above and beyond the call of duty. The Medal of Honor is only given to soldiers, by the CIC/POTUS himself, who intentionally place themselves in the way of immediate harm in order to serve his/her country or to protect the lives of others, in that the act was not usually an order but an act of initiative. To claim that you have earned such an award, especially to sway voters, when you've not come close is an affront to every single MoH recipient and an insult to their sacrifice for us that quite frankly, I'd cheer ro see that person imprisoned for a year or two.
If protecting the institutions of high national honors is inconceivable to you, then I'm sorry but I don't have the proper background in this area to help you understand why the state must protect the value of the ways in which we recognize extra-ordinary service in the act of protecting this country.
I agree that in most cases, " free speech " trumps everything non-libelous and not "fire" in a theater... But seriously this ranks right up there with libel, for most Americans , especially most of those familiar with the service and/or what these marks of distinction imply in the recipients.
Perhaps I phrased it poorly, Free speech is absolute when it doesn't cause tangible harm. Shouting fire in a theater causes tangible harm. Slander causes tangible harm. Lying about what one does for a living, does not. Even in cases of outright fraud, it's one of the most difficult torts to establish because it requires proof that damages resulted from intentional deception. You do have to claim damages, by the way, or you don't have a case to start with.
The long and short of your argument is that if someone says something that pisses people off, they should go to jail. That is the specific evil the First is intended to guard against.
I think this type of fraud is specifically outlined, it is not a general law against lying. It goes after a specific lie. It's not about pissing anyone off but disgracing those we have specifically called out as real heroes.
It's a "special exception" I know, but I don't think this special exception is unreasonable, and that's only because it is a very targeted law against the wide dissemination of a particular lie. Lying to pick up a patber at a bar is not against the law . It's not about anger, it's about honor, national honor.
That's how these things always start. A little infringement here, a bigger one there, then pretty soon everything is gone.
Now, if you want something legitimate to be miffed about, take a look at the pay checks Blackwater mercs pull down compared to US soldiers. Take a look at the pathetic treatment wounded vets receive at VA hospitals. You can't cash a ribbon, put it in the bank, or use it for a downpayment on a house . If you believe soldiers are heros, how about paying them hero's wages? Who's the hero? The Blackwater mercs pulling down six figure incomes, while E3s guard them day and night? Or the E3s that are making wages an Alabama field hand would have scorned prior to the Civil War?
And what a nice reward to give soldiers coming home from the wars to say, "Hey pal, you remember that Constitution you swore to defend with your life? Well, a bunch of brain dead civilians decided to cancel it in your honor.".
As repugnant as such dishonest acts may appear, the question of whether taking up the time and cost of the judicial system can be justified and have resulted in subtantial and quantifiable harm to a victim or even an organization. In the case of the man who benefited by being elected to his position through mendacity; the harm should be reasonably shown to have been done to other candidates for the position by the accused and resulted in their loss of position and money .
. We have enough frivolous laws taking up the time of our courts now, without coming up with more. The public disgrace by the exposure of such individuals should prove to be an effective and sufficient deterrent.
As for housing , I think there should be a mortgage agency run by the government that grants interest free mortgages to anyone with a certificate of "Honorable Discharge" with at least 4 years service.
what do you think? As if it matters what we peons think, but still