First Amendment vs the theft of Military Valor

First Amendment vs Stolen Valor

www.military.com

The federal courts are wrestling with a question of both liberty and patriotism: Does the First Amendment right to free speech protect people who lie about being war heroes?

(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 14/2/10 by COOL HAND]

Folks, can anyone explain to me how the First Amendment was meant to allow someone to make false claims as to military service?

I cannot believe that people are challenging this law, but then again the people challenging it are currently charged under it.

The reason this law was enacted was to protect the reputation and meaning of military heroism medals, in other words to ensure that people cannot take credit for military service they did not perform.

I hope this dies on the vine. This law is important, and needs to be kept in place.

www.military.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 2/14/2010 by semperfortis]

There are already laws against libel and slander, and the classic yelling "fire!" in a theater. So how "free" is "free speech" today anyway?

This should be a very delicate issue, as always when dealing with the Bill of Rights.

Whatever they decide, they should remember their decision may be used as precedent in the future when more issues come up that involve this amendment. So they should be very, very careful in the wording of their decision if they decide to not allow freedom of speech to apply to military decorations.


Personally, I say forget it and drop it. People lie about everything. You just have to learn to call them on it. If it came to something important, you could always check with the military and see if this person is actually decorated or not. There is not much use endangering the Bill of Rights just because some old man or whoever is spinning obvious lies. If we're going to make lying illegal at all then it should be most strictly enforced with the major media first, not private citizens.

People will use the first amendment to fit their own twisted means any time they can. Look, they jackasses already got busted for being a false war hero, wearing unawarded medals etc.....why wouldn't they or their scumbag pos lawyer, wipe their ass with The Constitution to defend their actions? Seems the more screwed up up you are in the world the quicker you'll grasp at anything to make it o.k.. I'd say draft these sorry bastards, I don't care their age health etc and stick their sorry asses in Afghanistan just so they can partially experience what it takes.

There is no need for a law about wearing unearned medals, I think a better idea is a law protecting those who whoop someone's ass publically for lying about their valor.

I am a free speech advocate. Staunch. However, i will say that anyone who would slur the true heroism of the men and women who gave their life for my freedom is among the lowest forms of life on Earth.

I take patriotism VERY seriously. I will cry when the national anthem is sung, and you will get read the riot act if you don't remove your hat and stand at attention. No, i never served (my greatest regret). And i would never, ever pretend to have served and spit on the blood and sweat of those who came before us.

Let those who would do such things swing. Our nation is stronger without such garbage.

reply to post by COOL HAND


Last I checked, Fraud is still consitered a crime in most places. Libel, perjury and other such laws would be null and void if the 1st Amendment were expanded to cover lying.

Telling lies should not be protected speach under the Constitution.

Although, I'm sure there are plenty of politicians who would argue for lying being protected speach.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I take patriotism VERY seriously. I will cry when the national anthem is sung, and you will get read the riot act if you don't remove your hat and stand at attention. No, i never served (my greatest regret). And i would never, ever pretend to have served and spit on the blood and sweat of those who came before us.

Let those who would do such things swing. Our nation is stronger without such garbage.

I'm proud of my own ancestors as well, but I'd have to draw the line somewhere in your post.

The problem as I see it is even the nastiest, most un-patriotic crooks can still sing the national anthem, wave a flag, and bring themselves to tears acting like they care when they really just want more power to do corrupt things. In fact it was a lot of this that helped the Nazis gain so much popularity in Germany. In a way, constantly drumming up the patriotic button is just appealing emotionally to the least intellectual bunch of citizens.


My patriotism stands as tolerance of others, tolerance of criticism, and eternal vigilance towards our own government and leaders, eternally meant to serve we, the people, and never the other way around.

For example I don't believe for a second that those fighting in Iraq are defending my freedom here. American freedom has absolutely nothing to do with why we're in Iraq, it's just the same old emotional patriotic appeal to the least thinking group of people. And I'm not afraid to say this, because I can say this, and that's why this is such a great and beautiful country. I am free to voice my criticisms of these modern wars and no one can break down my door and arrest me for it, because this isn't China.

I have a lot of respect for you Texans in general because over-all you all seem to have a good sense of where your priorities lie in freedom and the Constitution, having the right to bear arms and stand up against the federal government when your state feels especially burdened by it. It may seem paradoxical to a Texan but I have a lot of respect for Californians for the same reason, if not for their gun rights then at least for their guts to declare sovereignty over the fed when they so desire.

I watched a story on Oprah one day about a couple who had met at a concentration camp in world war two. Eventually they were separated but they found each other again some fifty years later got married and wrote a book about their whole experience, Angel at the Fence, I think it was called. I thought it was a lovely romance until I learned the couple was in their early 60s. Sure enough with in a few months of being on Oprah it was reveled they had lied about their story. They were not arrested and no charges were filed but the husband and wife that lied about this now live in shame. I think that may be punishment enough.

If a man wants to play dress up and pretend to be a war hero, I see nothing wrong with that. Should he wear medals of honor and tell long stories about combat experiences he never had is just fine with me. I would be very much against having such an importer arrested over some silly lies. Eventually liars are discovered. When they are people do not forget. The bigger the lie the worse the shame and revulsion from family, friends, and peers. I think thats good enough. If we begin jailing people for lying then we not have a government left to lock itself up!

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Flakey]

Folks,
What I think you fail to understand is that some of these people are profiting off of their lies. In some cases it has been money, in others it has been votes. I fail to see how anyone can defend this.

There is no reason why it would EVER be acceptable to allow something like this to occur. Someone please tell me how this law violates a person's first amendment rights?

reply to post by bsbray11


please don't misunderstand me. MY post is not all encompassing, and represents a very minor statement on a very broad subject.

having said that, i believe that any time a soldier heads into battle under the US flag, they are protecting my freedom. One single time, if our forces didn't follow orders, it puts at risk all future operations. Do i want them there? No, but i am proud that they are so willing to be our ambassadors. Sure, there are some bad ones, making bad stories. But that is the exception to the rule.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Folks,
What I think you fail to understand is that some of these people are profiting off of their lies. In some cases it has been money, in others it has been votes. I fail to see how anyone can defend this.

Just like every single politician.

I don't see why anyone even votes anymore, or why we don't just kick all of them out and replace them every time a term ends.

Keeping the 1st amendment as open as possible is more important to me than cracking down on people who lie about being in a war, even if they make money, who cares. Pretty soon the entire Bill of Rights is going to be worthless if we keep finding exceptions to it, here trying to make lying illegal and there trying to say citizens don't really have the right to own guns.

reply to post by bsbray11


I believe the "slippery slope" argument is an informal fallacy. We are not talking about removing guns rights. We are not talking about the application of anything other than carrying on the current status quo of not allowing people to lie about military medals.

If such would lead to the removal of guns rights, i suspect it would already be afoot. Since it isn't, the concept of the informal fallacy is only strengthened.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Just like every single politician.

Really, every single one of them?

Keeping the 1st amendment as open as possible is more important to me than cracking down on people who lie about being in a war, even if they make money, who cares. Pretty soon the entire Bill of Rights is going to be worthless if we keep finding exceptions to it, here trying to make lying illegal and there trying to say citizens don't really have the right to own guns.

This is more than trying to make lying illegal, and I don't know why you would ever support someone presenting themself as something they aren't.

I guess you would be okay if someone claimed to be a doctor and worked on someone you know? I mean is that any different than someone taking credit for something they didn't do?

The fact that you don't seem to have any problem with this makes me wonder about you (more).

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by bsbray11
Just like every single politician.

Really, every single one of them?

Yes, they ALL lie and get paid for it. The federal government's entire position on various issues is nothing but a facade and these guys go along with it whether they know better or not. If they rock the boat too much they're out of the job, that simple.

This is more than trying to make lying illegal, and I don't know why you would ever support someone presenting themself as something they aren't.

Um, because the alternative is to further limit the 1st amendment. So now it should be clear to you why I would "support" something over its alternative, ie continuing to rape the Bill of Rights.

I guess you would be okay if someone claimed to be a doctor and worked on someone you know? I mean is that any different than someone taking credit for something they didn't do?

Yes because there are laws against practicing medicine like that without a license; it's different than just lying and no one is physically hurt at all from your lying.

The fact that you don't seem to have any problem with this makes me wonder about you (more).

Wow. I really care. Why don't you take a break from the computer for a while? Somewhere along the line you really lost touch with external reality if you think I give a damn what you think about me.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I believe the "slippery slope" argument is an informal fallacy. We are not talking about removing guns rights. We are not talking about the application of anything other than carrying on the current status quo of not allowing people to lie about military medals.

Well do you understand that there are people in positions of power who don't like the fact that you're even entitled to the 1st amendment to begin with?

That's why I think this is a very slippery slope. Because if lying is already made illegal in various forms, and things like yelling "fire!" in a theater is already illegal, then it really is not much more to ask for various other limitations on the 1st amendment which basically make it meaningless. I'm not even saying laws against slander and libel aren't useful. I'm just saying if you really let it go much farther than this then you could very well have some paid-off lawyers trying to say the courts have already established precedent for some very disturbing limitations on free speech in coming years.


Just for example of what I'm talking about to show how lucky we are to even have the 1st amendment retained as much as we do today. The 2nd presidency (John Adams) saw the implementation of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" which made it illegal to publish anything inflammatory about the government or current administration. So only into our 2nd president after the Constitution was passed and already unconstitutional laws were being passed, and Virginia and Kentucky even passed resolutions that denounced and rejected these federal acts. They were extremely controversial and ended with Adams' presidency. But my point is simply to show how lucky we are to even be able to talk smack about our government as much as we do today, and especially in today's age of "War on Terror" and legislation like the "PATRIOT Act," you could very easily see modern legislation that makes criticizing the government, accusing it of wrong-doing or etc. made illegal and said to be "comforting the enemy" or some other total bull. We shouldn't take limitations of the Bill of Rights lightly. And I fail to see what exactly the big deal is about lying about military decorations, besides a bunch of meaningless emotional hoopla about pride and flag-waving. Like I said, a quick call to the relevant military office would set things straight in no time.

If such would lead to the removal of guns rights, i suspect it would already be afoot. Since it isn't, the concept of the informal fallacy is only strengthened.

I didn't say taking away our gun rights depends on them taking away our freedom of speech first. I am only making the point that the Bill of Rights is suddenly being interpreted very loosely today, to the point where ridiculous laws are severely limiting the freedoms established in that document. And this shouldn't be taken lightly. It is the very thing our military is supposed to fight and die for. Not the right to brag about the medals they win. That clearly takes a back seat to the freedoms themselves.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yes, they ALL lie and get paid for it. The federal government's entire position on various issues is nothing but a facade and these guys go along with it whether they know better or not. If they rock the boat too much they're out of the job, that simple.

Then what's the point of the multi-party system?

Um, because the alternative is to further limit the 1st amendment. So now it should be clear to you why I would "support" something over its alternative, ie continuing to rape the Bill of Rights.

So you think the First Amendment was written to give people today a chance to say that they are someone or something they are not?

I guess you would be okay if someone claimed to be a doctor and worked on someone you know? I mean is that any different than someone taking credit for something they didn't do?

Yes because there are laws against practicing medicine like that without a license; it's different than just lying and no one is physically hurt at all from your lying.

So, if someone claimed to be a doctor and caused no harm you would have no problem in them continuing what they are doing?

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Then what's the point of the multi-party system?

My thoughts exactly. Also George Washington's. One of the three things he warned against in his farewell address as president, was political parties. Go figure huh? People become mind-numbingly stupid when they simply vote along party lines and tow the status quo.

So you think the First Amendment was written to give people today a chance to say that they are someone or something they are not?

Sure, why not. It certainly doesn't NOT give them that right. I could lie all freaking day if I felt like it and there's nothing you can do but cry about it. I could say I fought in a secret war against Siberia and fought giant snow tigers and what are you going to do man? Someone with some sense and maturity about them would realize I'm talking out of my ass and start ignoring that kind of nonsense. Someone who DOESN'T have as much common sense and maturity would immediately seek to limit the Bill of Rights.

So, if someone claimed to be a doctor and caused no harm you would have no problem in them continuing what they are doing?

The way the laws against practicing medicine without a license are written, it would be illegal whether I had a problem with it or not. Whether or not I have a problem depends on whether or not the person actually knew what they were talking about, which would be left to my own judgment and no one else's. For example many "alternative" medicine practitioners can't legally claim they are medical doctors yet I might choose to see them anyway. And I would have every right to do so.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Sure, why not. It certainly doesn't NOT give them that right. I could lie all freaking day if I felt like it and there's nothing you can do but cry about it. I could say I fought in a secret war against Siberia and fought giant snow tigers and what are you going to do man? Someone with some sense and maturity about them would realize I'm talking out of my ass and start ignoring that kind of nonsense. Someone who DOESN'T have as much common sense and maturity would immediately seek to limit the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment has no provisions for such a thing, which is why it requires it's own law.

It isn't to take away from any part of the First Amendment. How does the First Amendment grant you the right to lie? Show me where it says that.

The other problem is that most people don't even realize this is going on, hence my posts. Most people assume that no one would be so heinous as to do such a thing, but they do.

Not many people know how to check military records, and most would not think they would have to. Just do a little researching on the subject and you will see how many people have been fooled.

The way the laws against practicing medicine without a license are written, it would be illegal whether I had a problem with it or not. Whether or not I have a problem depends on whether or not the person actually knew what they were talking about, which would be left to my own judgment and no one else's. For example many "alternative" medicine practitioners can't legally claim they are medical doctors yet I might choose to see them anyway. And I would have every right to do so.

They can't legally claim they are doctors because they are not licensed. Plain and simple.

reply to post by COOL HAND


Free speech includes telling your friends and relative you may have done things you just heard about or wanted to do. You may even
have decorations on the wall in your home that are intended to give the impression that you "earned " decorations for valor. After a two or eleven beers your story likely includes the additional information that the awards never came through channels because the guys that promised to write you up were killed in later action or some other BS.

The real deal is that your friends and relatives suspect the truth and do not challange your story because you are buying the beer or some other simple explanation. No harm no foul. They are not persuaded and they likely do not repeat your story execept to refer to it by some perjorative expression that they do not use in your presence. If you do hear it by accident it is because your fridge it empty of the usual stock of beer.

When you have told the story several times and try it out at the local veterans club and someone decideds to invite you to speak
at a public meeting and pay you for your time at an appearance you
are jumping into heavy traffic. Better have special orders and pictures of an award ceremony for the exact awards you state you have been awarded.

You can be sure someone who hears your talk and sees your uniform will quickly spot anything that appears out of order. Those who have combat decorations are blessed with excellent vision and can spot ribbons that are out of order from uncanny distance. Armed with the stolen valor law you can rest assured an actual vetern will sense a wannabe and hound him off the planet.

Without special orders and the required ceremony the bottom line is
no one has the right to claim they have a combat decoration, at least in public. Feeling you deserve it does not count. If you served in combat and contibuted in a valorous way, thank you, and rest assured that those few who selected for recognition know full well that they display their decorations as a symbol of the contributions made by many in military service.


Now, get off my lawn!