Stolen Valor Act ruled Unconstitutional

Status
Not open for further replies.
Luigi59 said:
I want my thread back. :argue1:
Click to expand...

OK, back on topic.

There was some good discussion regarding the legal implications of personal gains by someone claiming to have received military honors, which he was not actually awarded. Some of these benefits made the deception rise to the level of being “fraud” in the legal sense, while others did not. However, I think there was insufficient attention paid to the “damage” (from a legal perspective) done to others who are true recipients of these honors by those making false claims. In my mind there is a strong relationship to the issue of defamation.

I understand that defamation involves the making of a false and defamatory statement about another person, which is not what is happening here. None of the false heroes is said to have made damaging statements directly against the real heroes. However, I see similarities in that they made knowingly false statements—albeit in regard to themselves—which resulted in damage to others in the way of diminished perception of professional character or standing by others.

The harm done to the real heroes is twofold. First, the public esteem rightly enjoyed by real heroes is based, in large part, upon the rarity of the heroism they displayed and the corresponding infrequency with which these decorations for valor are given. With the huge numbers of false claims being made, the public comes to believe (wrongly) that such heroism is more common and, therefore, less deserving of their respect and admiration. Second, with greater awareness by the public of the extent to which false claims are being made (vastly outnumbering real heroes), the public gradually comes to look upon anyone making such a claim with skepticism and, based upon the sheer numbers alone, there comes to be an assumption that the individual is, himself, a faker, until proven otherwise. In my layperson’s opinion, there is real [legal] damage done to this entire class of people. I believe that it was this damage the law(s) intended to prevent, not the unwarranted personal gains by those making the claims (which are already protected by other laws, like those involving fraud).

To me, it sounds like the law serves a legitimate legal aim of protecting people from harm in the same manner as do laws relating to libel and slander. My question to the legal eagles here is whether such a law is both constitutional and enforceable, when A) the resulting damage is to a class of people, not a specific individual, and B) the link between a single faker’s specific false statements and the resulting [cumulative] damage to that class of people cannot be directly established.
 
Gray Hog said:
OK, back on topic.

There was some good discussion regarding the legal implications of personal gains by someone claiming to have received military honors, which he was not actually awarded. Some of these benefits made the deception rise to the level of being “fraud” in the legal sense, while others did not. However, I think there was insufficient attention paid to the “damage” (from a legal perspective) done to others who are true recipients of these honors by those making false claims. In my mind there is a strong relationship to the issue of defamation.

I understand that defamation involves the making of a false and defamatory statement about another person, which is not what is happening here. None of the false heroes is said to have made damaging statements directly against the real heroes. However, I see similarities in that they made knowingly false statements—albeit in regard to themselves—which resulted in damage to others in the way of diminished perception of professional character or standing by others.

The harm done to the real heroes is twofold. First, the public esteem rightly enjoyed by real heroes is based, in large part, upon the rarity of the heroism they displayed and the corresponding infrequency with which these decorations for valor are given. With the huge numbers of false claims being made, the public comes to believe (wrongly) that such heroism is more common and, therefore, less deserving of their respect and admiration. Second, with greater awareness by the public of the extent to which false claims are being made (vastly outnumbering real heroes), the public gradually comes to look upon anyone making such a claim with skepticism and, based upon the sheer numbers alone, there comes to be an assumption that the individual is, himself, a faker, until proven otherwise. In my layperson’s opinion, there is real [legal] damage done to this entire class of people. I believe that it was this damage the law(s) intended to prevent, not the unwarranted personal gains by those making the claims (which are already protected by other laws, like those involving fraud).

To me, it sounds like the law serves a legitimate legal aim of protecting people from harm in the same manner as do laws relating to libel and slander. My question to the legal eagles here is whether such a law is both constitutional and enforceable, when A) the resulting damage is to a class of people, not a specific individual, and B) the link between a single faker’s specific false statements and the resulting [cumulative] damage to that class of people cannot be directly established.
Click to expand...

That's one of the sticking points of slander and libel. Not only does the statement have to be false, the person making it must know it is false and there must be actual material damage that results. That's why I can say "gray hog is a turd." not libel, even though it's false and I know it.
 
LineInTheSand said:
That's why you can WRITE....as libel is written.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know Matlock. Clearly it was written and I meant "say" in the sense that we are saying on a forum, on which all things are written. Like when a certain person says I said this or that on here, we all know it was written (or...wasn't).

I'm one-finger typing at Cafe Du Monde. Gimme a break. Beignets are messy.
 
I realize that I may have complicated matters by blurring the lines between a criminal offense and a civil matter with my likening this knowingly false speech to defamation. To be clear, I was not trying to go down the path of identifying specific damages for which an individual plaintiff or group could seek legal remedy. I was merely trying to establish that there is a damaged party at all--in this case a damaged class of people, whom the law might rightly seek to protect.
 
scoutpilot said:
I'm one-finger typing at Cafe Du Monde.
Click to expand...
Wal-Mart down there sells the coffee for about $3.00 per pound. I pot of it and you can stay ahead of Pima for a week before you need to sleep. Us Navy guys are experts on coffee.

If you are still there Friday, do lunch down stairs at Galatoires with all the local movers and shakers. They will welcome outsiders with open arms. Ever since the oil spill you will get a very unique local slant on politics. If your wife is a doc, you can afford it. No reservations. Be there at 11:00. Jackets required.
 
Gray Hog said:
I realize that I may have complicated matters by blurring the lines between a criminal offense and a civil matter with my likening this knowingly false speech to defamation. To be clear, I was not trying to go down the path of identifying specific damages for which an individual plaintiff or group could seek legal remedy. I was merely trying to establish that there is a damaged party at all--in this case a damaged class of people, whom the law might rightly seek to protect.
Click to expand...

If you dig into the briefs, that's basically why the judge ruled that way. The govt couldn't provide substantive evidence of damages that made the juice worth the squeeze where the First Amendment is concerned.
 
tpg said:
I appreciate the sentiment. But I do not consider myself as such and was a bit embarrassed the attention it brought. In my mind, I was just showing off my child’s computer skills…..

Now when I think of a Hero-I think of people such as Capt. Arthur J. Jackson, who as a Private in the Marine Corps on the Island of Peleliu decided to:

“Boldly taking the initiative when his platoon's left flank advance was held up by the fire of Japanese troops concealed in strongly fortified positions, Pfc. Jackson unhesitatingly proceeded forward of our lines and, courageously defying the heavy barrages, charged a large pillbox housing approximately 35 enemy soldiers. Pouring his automatic fire into the opening of the fixed installation to trap the occupying troops, he hurled white phosphorus grenades and explosive charges brought up by a fellow marine, demolishing the pillbox and killing all of the enemy. Advancing alone under the continuous fire from other hostile emplacements, he employed similar means to smash 2 smaller positions in the immediate vicinity. Determined to crush the entire pocket of resistance although harassed on all sides by the shattering blasts of Japanese weapons and covered only by small rifle parties, he stormed 1 gun position after another, dealing death and destruction to the savagely fighting enemy in his inexorable drive against the remaining defenses, and succeeded in wiping out a total of 12 pillboxes and 50 Japanese soldiers. Stouthearted and indomitable despite the terrific odds. Pfc. Jackson resolutely maintained control of the platoon's left flank movement throughout his valiant 1-man assault and, by his cool decision and relentless fighting spirit during a critical situation, contributed essentially to the complete annihilation of the enemy in the southern sector of the island.”
Now that is a HERO!

http://www.cmohs.org/recipient-detail/2801/jackson-arthur-j.php
Click to expand...

You are are good man then, lets leave it at that. :thumb: I owe you a beer.
 
You know what? This whole thread is starting to make my head explode! I don't care if one of you proves to me that this "Judge" was a "Bush" appointee, this law is just one more tactic to erode our great American society toward the drain.

Please vote this year.

Just me, carry on, I'm out...
 
I have been reading this post for a long time. Originally I was all for the "Stolen Valor Act" and punishing those who dishonored the decorations earned by people better than themselves. This discussion has changed my mind. The only person I have to answer to is the guy that looks back at me in the mirror every morning. I know what I did and why I did it. That should be enough for all. Screw the morons, the fakers and the guy in the old fatigue blouse and jungle fatigues with forty Vietnam patches that shows up at every parade. Those that defraud using military decorations or rank are subject to civil authorities. Let the civil authorities handle it.

Talking about Coffee: You have never been on a Radar Site at the 16:00 turnover on Friday with a big pot. The next time coffee was made was 05:30 Monday. We drank the same stuff for about eight shifts. The NCOs came back on duty on Monday and we had to make them new coffee. My wife thinks I drink molasses rather than coffee.
 
Last edited:
AF6872 said:
I have been reading this post for a long time. Originally I was all for the "Stolen Valor Act" and punishing those who dishonored the decorations earned by people better than themselves. This discussion has changed my mind. The only person I have to answer to is the guy that looks back at me in the mirror every morning. I know what I did and why I did it. That should be enough for all. Screw the morons, the fakers and the guy in the old fatigue blouse and jungle fatigues with forty Vietnam patches that shows up at every parade. Those that defraud using military decorations or rank are subject to civil authorities. Let the civil authorities handle it.

Talking about Coffee: You have never been on a Radar Site at the 16:00 turnover on Friday with a big pot. The next time coffee was made was 05:30 Monday. We drank the same stuff for about eight shifts. The NCOs came back on duty on Monday and we had to make them new coffee. My wife thinks I drink molasses rather than coffee.
Click to expand...

Or pulling security in an LP/OP at 0300 with a big fat lipper in....not tobacco, though...a lipper of Sanka/Taster's Choice from an MRE.
 
scoutpilot said:
Yeah, I know Matlock. Clearly it was written and I meant "say" in the sense that we are saying on a forum, on which all things are written. Like when a certain person says I said this or that on here, we all know it was written (or...wasn't).

I'm one-finger typing at Cafe Du Monde. Gimme a break. Beignets are messy.
Click to expand...

Sorry Gomer Pyle, I know libel is five letters, and anything beyond four gets a little tough for WPers.

Eat one for me. I was down there for a month, and somehow never made it over there. I ran past it the two of the three days I had off, but never stopped. Good stuff though.
 
AF6872 said:
The only person I have to answer to is the guy that looks back at me in the mirror every morning. I know what I did and why I did it. That should be enough for all.
Click to expand...
What about the 58,195 listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall. Are you going to get them a mirror also? Or is that too much work? If they need a mirror, I guess the 'civil authorities' can handle it.
 
Libel, slander, deflamation all require proof of actual damage which is often difficult to prove, especially, among others, for those individuals listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall.

Why not make it a law just to require respect? There are laws that demand that the US Flag be respected and displayed properly. It is against the law to fly a flag upside down or not to treat it properly (flag burning), both which can be easily defended as freedom of speech. Is the only reason the law still exists is because it is never enforced? (when the US Supreme Court declared flag burning fell within 1st Ammendment rights, our Congress was within a few votes of passing a special law. Given the media platfroms of today, it would probably have passed. Does proper displaying of our medals deserve a similiar law?)

George Washington DID state that falsely wearing medals was a crime. He was the Father of our Country. He was our commander-in-chief when he made this declaration. He was President when the 1st Ammendment was ratified. Had he thought his original edict violated freedom of speech I am sure he would have corrected it. Therefore, I think his original law should be grandfathered into the US Code. My head hurts too. Anyone know any good (or bad) sexist jokes?
 
Last edited:
The more you try to legislate morality, the weaker you make the constitution and our individual rights. No one has the "RIGHT" to someone's respect. I just heard on the radio this morning about a restaurant being sued for being in violation of the ADA law; because a mirror in their men's rest room was mounted 2 inches too high. This isn't a lawsuit where the restaurant patron had a problem, informed the restaurant, and the restaurant refused to correct the problem. "That would have required the patron had respect for the owner of the restaurant". This was a matter of the patron coming to the restaurant over and over, numerous times, as they built their case against the restaurant.

Vietnam veterans, our flag, etc... "DESERVE" our respect. But that doesn't mean we should legislate that people must "SHOW" respect. Reminds me of certain parents and even some military individuals who demand that their position be respected. I think deep down inside, they know that they will never EARN the respect of those they have authority over; so they instead demand that their "Position" be respected. Legislating morality is wrong. It can be rationalized many different ways; but unless a certain personal action can cause harm to another individual or infringes on their right, it shouldn't be legislated.
 
Last edited:
However, we do attempt to legislate morality. The entire country is divided into two pretty much equal groups, those who favor it and those who don't (abortion).

While I agree that demanding respect is probably not the way to proceed, not so sure about not being able to disallow disrespect. I see this as two totally different issues.
 
Christcorp said:
...but unless a certain personal action can cause harm to another individual or infringes on their right, it shouldn't be legislated.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the rub. The primary issue here is not whether fakers are being "disrespectful" to the decorations or the individuals who truly earned them; it is whether by their false claims to have earned them themselves, they cause harm to the true heroes.

As I stated previously, I believe they do so by making heroism/valor appear more commonplace, thereby lessening the standing of true heroes in the public's perception, as well as by creating a climate in which the perceived "norm" is one in which those claiming to be recipients of decorations for valor are more often bogus than authentic, thereby casting a veil of doubt--and even resentment--upon anyone who makes such a claim, including the true heroes. The harm is quite similar to that done through direct acts of defamation. It is not a victimless crime.

However, it appears that the case for this harm was not adequately made and/or the connection between individual acts of misrepresentation and the harm done to a class of people through the cumulative effect of many such acts not directly established, and the courts rejected the argument.
 
Mongo said:
Why not make it a law just to require respect? There are laws that demand that the US Flag be respected and displayed properly. It is against the law to fly a flag upside down or not to treat it properly (flag burning), both which can be easily defended as freedom of speech. Is the only reason the law still exists is because it is never enforced?
Click to expand...

The "Flag Code" (USC Title 4 Section 1) is not really a law anymore, it is not enforceable, and there are no penalties for not following it. It is really just an etiquette section of the US Code, nothing but advisory rules without penalty.

Call them "guidelines."

Fly it upside down, burn it, make it into a pair of pants - all legal.

It is entirely up to each person to respect or not respect the US Flag, an individual right that every war veteran has fought for and defended.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top