Stolen Valor

[Aurielius]

The Stolen Valor Act will get its first major test this week.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to review a case involving a man who lied about getting the Medal of Honor.

Colorado resident Rick Glen Strandlof claimed he was awarded the Purple Heart and Silver Star after being wounded in Iraq. He was arrested after military found no record of his service, and was charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act. The 2006 law is aimed a curbing false claims of military valor.

A federal appeals court struck down the law in 2010, calling it unconstitutional. The Denver-based 10th Circuit Court reversed the decision last month.

Lawyers for Strandlof say his lies didn't hurt anyone, so it shouldn't be considered fraud.

 

I have a predictable view (which includes Tar, Feathers and a Rail) but am curious of yours. That it reprehensible goes without saying but should it be criminal?

[Balagor]

Well, if he didn´t gain anything from it (except a few womans gaze) and he only hurt peoples feelings, I do not consider it a crime.

You do not mention in what way he was lying about it. Was he only showing off in a bar, did he get a job this way, did he get fame and wealth?

If not, I do not see why he should be punished, with all due rspect to your medals.

[Aurielius]

Well, if he didn´t gain anything from it (except a few womans gaze) and he only hurt peoples feelings, I do not consider it a crime.

You do not mention in what way he was lying about it. Was he only showing off in a bar, did he get a job this way, did he get fame and wealth?

If not, I do not see why he should be punished, with all due rspect to your medals.

His offense is lying about holding the CMH (Congressional Medal of Honor , which I most assuredly was never awarded). There seems to be no proof that he used it to obtain money or loan guarantees. It should be noted that brave men have died getting this accolade and more have been awarded posthumously than have been hung on their necks with family and friends looking on. It is the nation's highest honor and does hold value ( though intangible), so some degree of theft is inherent.

 

However.. "They're committing fraud. They're impersonating somebody else. They take on attributes of somebody else, attributes of a hero who served honorably," said Pam Sterner, whose college term paper calling for the law wound up in the hands of members of Congress. "When you do that, impersonating someone else, that's fraud, not freedom of speech."

 

Now in real life I have had the unfortunate experience of meeting 'posers' but was always able to discern that within minutes. Personally I think publishing their fraud in the local newspapers and exposing their misappropriation of deeds would lead to the censure and shame due them, but am not entirely at ease with the ramifications of curtailing of free speech by criminalizing it.

[HeyYou]

There was another instance where a man running for elected office (don't recall which one) made the same claims. He was found out, and oddly enough, didn't win the election. Thank God.

 

He is lying. I don't see where that is covered by first amendment rights. By his actions, he is dishonoring those that have served, and been honestly awarded the various medals. Throw his ass in a military prison, and make sure the other prisoners know exactly why he is in there.

[Marxist ßastard]

We already have laws against fraud. Legally, the only purpose of this law is to set a precedent which erodes our First Amendment rights.

 

Medal of Honor recipients on MWSource (lol), which is more important: your SPECIAL GOLD STAR, or the freedoms you ostensibly fought to protect?

[grannywils]

I'm not sure I understood the previous post by MB, so cannot respond to that one directly. However, in response to the OP, I believe Mr. Strandlof's behavior was reprehensible and totally immoral. I disagree with his lawyers regarding whether or not his lies hurt anyone. However, I cannot in good consciencious say that I believe he should be jailed for this offense. He needs to live with himself, and in my opinion that is punishment enough.

[HeyYou]

We already have laws against fraud. Legally, the only purpose of this law is to set a precedent which erodes our First Amendment rights.

 

Medal of Honor recipients on MWSource (lol), which is more important: your SPECIAL GOLD STAR, or the freedoms you ostensibly fought to protect?

 

Never been in the military have you?

 

I don't think the founding fathers had in mind liars when they were talking about free speech. It is, after all, illegal to scream FIRE in a theatre.... etc.

[marharth]

We already have laws against fraud. Legally, the only purpose of this law is to set a precedent which erodes our First Amendment rights.

 

Medal of Honor recipients on MWSource (lol), which is more important: your SPECIAL GOLD STAR, or the freedoms you ostensibly fought to protect?

 

Never been in the military have you?

 

I don't think the founding fathers had in mind liars when they were talking about free speech. It is, after all, illegal to scream FIRE in a theatre.... etc.

That is because yelling fire is dangerous. MB is pretty much right. If it isn't used for any gain, you are arresting someone for falsely claiming they have a shiny gold star.

 

That is a bit offensive though and a understatement since military rewards are far more important, but it still stands. The fact is that you should not arrest someone for this unless they are using it for personal gain.

 

Things like the purple heart are important for a lot of people, but I can give quite a few example of important things people commonly lie about. It really does not matter in the long run if someone lies about getting a military reward unless they use it for their own gain.

 

As MB said, fraud laws already cover this.

 

However you are not committing fraud if you say you have a CMH. That is not impersonating someone unless you are directly saying you are someone that has a CMH. That really still is not grounds for arrest in my opinion unless they were using it for their own gain.

 

 

Honestly just because you get emotional over this does not mean you should violate someones freedom for it. It is pretty scummy to say you got a military reward when you didn't, but arresting someone for it is ridiculous.

Edited February 20, 2012 by marharth

[Marxist ßastard]

I don't think the founding fathers had in mind liars when they were talking about free speech.

Yes. Yes, they did. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" – that perfectly captures the idea of free speech as the Constitution's framers understood it.

 

The First Amendment protects pure speech absolutely. If an act of pure speech harms no one, the government cannot make it illegal. If it does harm someone, it already falls under the existing fraud and defamation laws.

[Aurielius]

We already have laws against fraud. Legally, the only purpose of this law is to set a precedent which erodes our First Amendment rights.

 

Medal of Honor recipients on MWSource (lol), which is more important: your SPECIAL GOLD STAR, or the freedoms you ostensibly fought to protect?

I am not entirely sure whom you are aiming that petard at, but I thought that at least in my case I was fairly clear. But your reference to the CMH as a 'special gold star' is insulting to those who hold it. I expected you to defend free speech as a paramount value but not to denigrate the nation's highest honor or the motives of those who have been awarded it. That you find medals of valor humorous says more about you than it does about the holders.