Is stolen valor protected by the first amendment?

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:28:07 -0500

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Jan 12 at 2016 4:30 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:30:40 -0500

According to the Supreme Court it is protected. Lying is not illegal in the United States... where do you draw the line? If you start arresting people for giving false or exaggerated information about themselves, we will quickly run out of prisons. I hate Stolen Valor as much as the next guy, but I don't want to live in a country where you can be prosecuted simply because somebody else doesn't like what you said. You really going to start throwing people in prison for wearing the wrong color ribbon on their shirt? Is that really what we fought for?

What is illegal however is fraud, which is why it's illegal to use Stolen Valor for personal financial gain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez

United States v. Alvarez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, a federal law that criminalized false statements about having a military medal. The law had been passed as an effort to stem instances where people falsely claimed to have won the medal in an attempt to protect the "valor" of those who really had. While a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed that the...

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Jan 12 at 2016 4:35 PM

SFC Pete Kain — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:35:26 -0500

Apparently it is. And many here (no names) support it. Sigh, will the courts hold same opinion if the losers claim to be Judges, lawyers, or cops?

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 4:35 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:35:56 -0500

Stolen valor should not be protected, and the federal appeals court was wrong.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 4:42 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:42:14 -0500

I think there should be some exceptions. This is one. Yes I do think that those that make the false allegations should face the original punishment. Just disgusting to me where or how far south our country has gone. #pathetic

Response by MAJ Jim Steven made Jan 12 at 2016 4:56 PM

MAJ Jim Steven — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:56:22 -0500

I am not at all a fan of Stolen Valor....its insulting.
But...what is the difference between wearing medals you didn't earn and telling a cute girl at a bar that you are something you aren't (or, a woman pretending to not be seeking a relationship)??
If Stolen Valor becomes illegal, could your facebook posting become a lie as well?
How about lying on your resume - that is for financial gain ?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 5:04 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:04:39 -0500

Not only fraudulent but they are impersonating. Here come fake doctors... Just so ridiculous. Gross

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 5:10 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:10:37 -0500

It's called STOLEN -STOLEN valor for a reason

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 5:18 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:18:20 -0500

I disagree that walking around pretending to be something you are not meets the definition of "speech".
Since the courts don't agree and say that it is protected by the First Amendment, I will exercise my First Amendment right to call them a punk.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 12 at 2016 5:24 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:24:06 -0500

No, it should not as innocent parties may confer benefits to veterans or alter their behavior.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 5:42 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:42:06 -0500

I just read about this happening again. I think it is BS. I understand if one wants to have some random medal for some random reason. But as soon as you say or claim you earned it when in reality you didn't you should be held accountable. A lot of states do have laws against this but the person wearing the award has to benefit from it. So if they have a medal and are paid for a speaker engagement then they should be punished.

Response by SSgt Terry P. made Jan 12 at 2016 5:58 PM

SSgt Terry P. — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:58:26 -0500

SGT Private RallyPoint Member I have no use at all for a liar or a thief and these people fit the description of both.They are benefiting in some manner or they would not be doing this.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 6:46 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:46:34 -0500

I think places like Sea world, etc that give discounts for the military will cease to exist. Especially clothing stores... It's stealing. Reaping the benefits.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jan 12 at 2016 7:34 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:34:46 -0500

Pretending with no compensation in return be it monetary, gift, discount, acceptance, or position is protected free speech. If they represent or other hold them self's out in any way as a Soldier, be it inflated resume or service at all and receive any consideration for that fraud, then NOT protected, and should be prosecuted.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Jan 12 at 2016 8:23 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:23:59 -0500

No. We have really strayed from original intent of free speech. But the courts could have a different opinion.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 9:48 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 21:48:44 -0500

Sure it is and I have a diploma from MIT and Harvard Law. Note: I didn't say I earned it, but i have them and if you ask me if I earned them, I'll say you are violating my civil rights and file a defamation suit.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 12 at 2016 10:04 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:04:51 -0500

Although "Stolen Valor" falls under Free Speech, using it to perpetuate Fraud is not Protected.

When it really boils down to it, some people LIE. People lie about all kinds of things. Just because they happen to be lying about something PERSONAL to us (like medals), does not make it any more important than if they lied about something else (like going to Harvard, or having a 4.0 GPA). It's when they use that lie for gain (fraud) that society gets to step in and take action.

Yes, it sucks. Yes, it's WRONG. But Wrong, and LEGAL, and CONSTITUTIONAL are not the same thing. Something can be completely WRONG, but be completely CONSTITUTIONAL at the same time. Our system (the Constitution), says what the Government CAN'T do to the People. One of those things is the hard limits on Free Speech.

Just like burning the Flag is Protected, something most of us find particularly offensive doesn't make it Unconstitutional. If that is inside the lateral limits of Protected Speech, wearing a bit of ribbon...

Response by LTC John Shaw made Jan 12 at 2016 10:43 PM

LTC John Shaw — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:43:26 -0500

Typical of the 9th Circuit, CA leads the way in ruling's that have no fundamental constitutional construction. Such a disappointing opinion.

Response by Duane Weimerskirch made Jan 13 at 2016 1:47 AM

Duane Weimerskirch — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 01:47:04 -0500

i hear some places do nothing about it. if someone is trying to make profit from stolen valor then charge away. if they are just wearing the uniform let him go and if someone beats the hell out of them then oops

Response by CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2016 2:50 AM

CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 02:50:21 -0500

Edit: I posted this elsewhere but apparently it was merged with this thread. I don't know where it went.

So once again our Judges didn't read their law books when making a ruling. The idea that you can get ticketed or arrested for swearing in the street at night but not for slapping everyone that has respect for or donned a uniform is absurd.

Yeah, so I got the law books out last night... 1600 pages on constitutional law, and I definitely didn't read all of it, but... there are pretty interesting things limiting speech such as that which serves as fighting words.

I know I have been on the free speech bandwagon for a while, but reading deeper into some of the protections we have put in place has enlightened me a bit.

I would posit that Stolen Valor falls under the same category as “Fighting Words” and that this in and of itself is a violation of public peace, as well as should be expected to have retaliation. The ruling on this was by a generation far more knowledgeable than this one, with far greater wisdom than those riding the bench. I see the hypocrisy that this expression of fighting words (stolen valor) be viewed as free speech. Stolen valor should be upheld, and while I do not advocate violence against those that perform stolen valor, I do believe the repercussions of those that take action against them and sometimes get carried away should be highly mitigated to the minimum punishment if not at all. I believe the below excerpt should help explain why stolen valor needs to be upheld and retaliation punishments minimized unless grossly excessive.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942)
“There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise and Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words-those which by their very utterance inflict injure or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”
It goes on to further say, “The word ‘offensive’ is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be likely to cause an average addressee to fight. The English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent are ‘fighting words’.”

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Jan 13 at 2016 11:49 AM

Capt Tom Brown — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:49:36 -0500

I find stolen valor, impersonation etc to be totally repugnant which should be punished with a good ass-beating by any military in the area physically capable of doing it. Unfortunately when we start drawing the line at what can be said we encounter an old fashioned slippery slope esp in this day and age of press-fed PC when the neo-mobs of shrill minority groups can bully and force timid ins to move like a herd of cattle. The rule of society can't be left to the loudest most virulent and extreme types of any stripe or color, so we are going to have to put up with things like flag-burning and stolen valor abuses of free speech for now.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2016 3:53 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:53:58 -0500

Sadly it is, what is not protected though is the phony usage of fake awards to obtain benefits in a fraudulent manner, ie. VA disability.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2016 4:10 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 16:10:49 -0500

The way I read it is, if a person is wearing unearned medals ect. on a uniform in public he is expressing his amendment. If a person is using it to gain from it (VA, discounts, ect..); unlawful. If a person lies to an authority figure (police), then it is also unlawful. If a person is wearing it and lying in front of me, it is against Gerry Poe's law and you will get addressed quickly!!!!

Response by SGT Tim Pugel made Jan 13 at 2016 8:59 PM

SGT Tim Pugel — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 20:59:29 -0500

In my opinion, Stolen Valor should not be protected by the First Amendment. They are taking away from those of us who have served the time and have earned everything we wear. Those who impersonate us are giving us a bad rep due to people now questioning the legitimacy of those who have served.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jan 13 at 2016 10:24 PM

PO1 John Miller — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 22:24:32 -0500

Apparently yes... SMDH...

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 5:53 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:53:52 -0500

Your question is a little misleading. Stolen valor is a crime! The wearing of medals, ribbons or uniform is not if there is no profit of fraud in the action. The Stolen Valor Act of 2013 (Pub.L. 113–12; H.R. 258) is a United States federal law that was passed by the 113th United States Congress. The law amends the federal criminal code to make it a crime for a person to fraudulently claim having received any of a series of particular military decorations and awards with the intention of obtaining money, property, or other tangible benefit from convincing someone that he or she rightfully did receive that award.

This law is a revised version of a previous one that was struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case United States v. Alvarez for being an infringement of the constitutional right to freedom of speech.

Now, some background here to understand what is going on. The first Stolen Valor Act, passed in 2005 had two portions. The first was that you couldn't wear medals you didn't earn, and the second is that you couldn't claim to have earned medals that you hadn't actually earned. A guy named Xavier Alvarez was convicted on the second after claiming he'd received the Medal of Honor and a few other things. It went up to the Supreme Court, who in a very convoluted and divided opinion said that that portion, the claiming medals part, violated the Constitution. The vote on that was 3-2-4. Three said it was always unconstitutional, two said that it was unconstitutional in this case because it needed a fraud element added, and four said it should stand.

Subsequently, the Congress fixed the law, said that claiming medals for the purpose of securing something of value was illegal, and that's where we stand. What the 9th Circuit decided was that the original law's prohibition on wearing medals was also unconstitutional, basing it on the same grounds the Supreme Court found in Alvarez on the claiming medals portion.

Now we could argue the morality of this all day! But the bottom line, there is no specified harm to individuals by someone wearing medals and or uniform parts in public. If there is no financial gain, profit or services offered and received by the individual. Do I like it, no I don't! But it is what it is!

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jan 14 at 2016 6:47 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:47:11 -0500

It shouldn't be. That's all I have to say about it.

Response by MSG Allan Davis made Mar 1 at 2020 3:52 AM

MSG Allan Davis — Sun, 01 Mar 2020 03:52:26 -0500

Yes and real mature intelligent adults leave other people alone and mind their own business. This issue is not tired it is in a coffin it’s so old