OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post 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."
The Moose
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post 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. [:(]
User avatar
jetjockey
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:31 am

RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post by jetjockey »

Today shall be remembered as a very sad day. This ruling does not protect Free Speech, only some free speech.
Brian Anthony Rademacher
User avatar
oldman45
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 4:15 am
Location: Jacksonville Fl

RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post by oldman45 »

I needed a shower after I read it on line.
Commander Stormwolf
Posts: 1623
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:11 pm

RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post by Commander Stormwolf »



a free man speaks

a servant obeys
"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post by witpqs »

Considering the full day's rulings, Congress could just pass a law that taxes such false speech.
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post 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.

User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post 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.

"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
rockmedic109
Posts: 2414
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:02 am
Location: Citrus Heights, CA

RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post 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.
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post 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.

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
Hermit
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:55 pm

RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post 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.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post 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?
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post 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.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
USSAmerica
Posts: 19198
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Graham, NC, USA
Contact:

RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post 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]
Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Image
Artwork by The Amazing Dixie
User avatar
USSAmerica
Posts: 19198
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Graham, NC, USA
Contact:

RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post 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]
Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Image
Artwork by The Amazing Dixie
User avatar
Califvol
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:24 am
Location: The Land of Yore

RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post 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

Why am I sharing my opinion? Because I am such a special snowflake that others need my knowledge. What…there are like a billion snowflakes? Oh, well isn't that special.
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 11243
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post 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
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post 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.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 11243
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post 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.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: OT: Stolen Valor Act in the Court

Post 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.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”