Posted on Jan 12, 2016
Is stolen valor protected by the first amendment?
16K
110
84
8
8
0
Posted in these groups: 
Stolen Valor
1st Amendment
Stolen Valor 1st Amendment
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 27
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
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...
(15)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
SMSgt Thor Merich - Ironically, your statement is partly in reverse. It can be illegal to lie to police under certain conditions (see: obstruction of justice), but it's not illegal for police to lie to you. See Supreme Court Case Frazier v. Cupp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp
Frazier v. Cupp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case that affirmed the legality of deceptive interrogation tactics.[1]
(0)
(0)
SMSgt Thor Merich
I do not disagree with your general premise though. Unless fraud is involved, we should not be throwing folks in jail for it. I am not opposed to a light beating though, depending on the circumstance..
(4)
(0)
SMSgt Thor Merich
LTC Yinon Weiss - That is true, the police are allowed to use a ruse (legal word for lying) in most cases. As a retired city police officer, its irks me that crooks can lie to me under most circumstances with no penalty, but lying to the FBI under all circumstances is illegal. I personally know a former police officer who is now doing 2 years in federal prison for lying about a affair he had. No lie (pun intended).
(1)
(0)
Capt Mark Strobl
SMSgt Thor Merich - Fraud only becomes an element when the rouge statement results in damage, loss, or misappropriation. Stolen Valor, while I do believe to be offensive, creates no victim. Thus, it likely does not qualify as legally fraudulent. All this said, I quietly support your suggestion to "light beating."
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
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...
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...
(9)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - that at least is a cogent argument. I'm not aware of a public decency law being overturned on a free speech argument, but I am not a lawyer. I am aware of public decency laws being modified by the state legislatures, as they should be.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
1SG (Join to see) - Most of the "public decency" laws fall under the State level. There is no Federal Statute to the best of my knowledge, however there are regulations which apply to Federal Parks (usually state laws). The State level laws are generally categorized under "lewdness" however with intent of "Sexual Arousal" (either party or both) by exposure of genitals, anus, or in the case of females the nipples. However breastfeeding is exempted (for the most-part).
The crimes in question are not ones of "expression" as would trip the 1a Protections, but more akin to to "assault" because of the sexual or predatory nature. There is a very nuanced difference between them. Like any rule, law, or regulation we are looking at a dimmer, not a toggle... however there is a certain point where that dimmer may as well be off/on.
The crimes in question are not ones of "expression" as would trip the 1a Protections, but more akin to to "assault" because of the sexual or predatory nature. There is a very nuanced difference between them. Like any rule, law, or regulation we are looking at a dimmer, not a toggle... however there is a certain point where that dimmer may as well be off/on.
(0)
(0)
MSG Allan Davis
Top, this answer is frustrating and irritating. You are a SNCO grow up, be an adult, get some maturity and damn 1SG act your age.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
MSG Allan Davis - What do you mean, good sir?
Name calling does not become you.
Are you saying that you support portraying yourself as a war hero should be protected free speech?
Or are you saying that I am wrong for calling such individuals punks?
Or perhaps some other deep thought that I missed in your reprimand of my response.
Name calling does not become you.
Are you saying that you support portraying yourself as a war hero should be protected free speech?
Or are you saying that I am wrong for calling such individuals punks?
Or perhaps some other deep thought that I missed in your reprimand of my response.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google