Well- actually none of your examples seems to shed much light on why this should be a be a federal crime. All of those categories imply either personal gain or harm to others, or impeding an official investigation. But the Stolen Valor Act isn't hinged on that is it? Merely the claim is enough. And most definitely, despite whatever legal parsing you wish to place on it, lying in the public space is in fact part and parcel of the way things are conducted- whether it is "harmless" lying to hide true feelings or lying to achieve some public or personal reputation. Ever notice how battles get larger over time? How many more first responders rushed to New York on 9/11? By 2021 when peoples memories will be pretty foggy, I am certain that if you add up all the claims, well over 100,000 people will have had meetings in the twin towers at 0915 on that morning. The public, the government and individuals all lie- constantly, though usually they do so in individual and private settings. I suspect it would be news to the vast majority of the public as well as the legal industry in the US that lies told with out either the intention or effect of inflicting harm on others is not protected public speech. That's not say it's admirable speech but is it criminal?
But if the position you are articulating is that any false claim is already a crime- independent of any gain or injury to others- then why not write the federal law that way? Because it would not pass nor would it be upheld is the answer. So then you come back to the basic question- why is this worthy of a Federal statute, and should it be so? Really- is this worthy of being a Federal crime ? In the age of the internet, fraudulent claims can and are outed rapidly and relatively easily and these individuals are relegated to the humiliation and ignominy that they deserve. Why though should this rise to the level of a federal crime- tried in front of a Federal judge? Is that really what we want of the Federal government? Like I said in my earlier posts- I find these incidents and people personally abhorrent, but I have a really hard time with everything that is personally abhorrent rising to the level of federal crimes.
Bruno: A couple of points. Whether lying about your military medal *should* be a crime is quite different than the point, you made earlier (and to which I responded with my post) that lying is protected speech under the 1st Amendment. It's not protected speech and hence is entitled to no solace under the law. As I said, the premise is wrong. Of course, that lying is not protected does not necessarily mean it should be prohibited either. The Court's breathing room cases make that clear in holding that lying can't be prohibited when doing so would infringe on some important 1st Amendment principle, such as freedom of the press.
Indeed, that lots of people lie is a truism and certainly it would be insane to attach criminal sanctions for all lying. (You and I are saints, of course, but I am reasonably sure that all the rest of the population are not). And reasonable people can and do disagree about whether this guy's lie about receiving the Medal of Honor is worthy of criminal sanction. That is a matter of personal opinion. In my book, those who actually have received such medals for valor have special standing to opine on this subject, but this is a matter of public policy and everyone has a right to an opinion.
Congress enacted the Stolen Valor Act because of a strong feeling that these liars ought not be allowed to claim military honor, which are bestowed under the authority of law enacted by Congress for deeds, including self-sacrifice, that are in defense of our country. Such lying is an affront to all citizens. Congress has identified the harm at issue: “[f]raudulent claims surrounding the receipt of ... [military] decorations and medals awarded by the President or the Armed Forces of the United States damage the reputation and meaning of such decorations and medals.” Stolen Valor Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109–437, § 2(1), 120 Stat. 3266 (2006). That honor is and ought to be rare and highly esteemed and that honor should not be diluted or diminished or stolen by fraud or liars. This especially applies to the MofH, which is not only the highest honor, it is usually awarded posthumously. I personally agree with that Congressional judgment. I think this circumstance is a far cry from the run of the mill lying seen in everyday life. I also think the sanctions are too mild, but then I am a unforgiving a Hard A__ on this.
Anyway, my original point was that the Ninth Circuit is way wrong *on the law* on this one (as were you were mistaken, BTW, in suggesting the lying is protected speech under the 1st Amendment -- nothing personal, Bruno, you are probably not a lawyer and you actually produce something useful in your line of work). Rather than belabor this point, I would point to the 9th Circuit's exchange of views in a very sharply divided court on the denial of rehearing en banc. You will find it at United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666 C.A.9 (Cal.),2011. My prediction is that the views of Judge O'SCANNLAIN, dissenting from the denial of en banc, will carry the day in the Supreme Court. But, that's just my personal opinion. The Court's opinion will clarify the law on this. Look for it in June.
