[careinke]

Currently, it is illegal to lie about receiving a medal for valor from the U.S. Military. The law is now being challenged in the Supreme court.

[JohnRM]

The 1st Amendment does not exist to provide citizens with the right to commit fraud.

[Loki]

I don't understand why Nike and other corporations should claim the "right to lie," but the average dipshit can't do the same.

[Keith_McClary]

What's the big deal, they can swiftboat the real ones, why worry about fakes?

[Plantagenet]

Richard Blumenthal lied about having served in the military in Vietnam, but the people of Connecticut elected him to the Senate in 2010 anyway.

The law seems pretty toothless if someone can lie to millions of people by fabricating an imaginary history of service in VietNam and still be elected to a position of honor in the US Senate.


Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) admitted his prior claims he had served in VietNam were fabrications, but was still elected to the US Senate in 2010.

[careinke]

why is it that I can't take this poll seriously? I wonder? hum? Is it the methodology? (leading questions, illdefined choices?, ideological bias?). Could it be the grammatical failings? Nah.

Its the subject. This is AMERICA, land of free speech. No where in the constitution or bill of rights does it say that patriotism trumps freedom of speech. Ever hear of the expression "buyer beware"? If someone wants to hang their tin medal in your face, and you don't have the capacity to distinguish a fair-weather patriot from a good man/woman, then you deserve a fleecing.

What part of No, Yes, and I'm not sure don't you understand? Maybe I can help.

Personally I think the behavior is wrong, but there should not be a law against it. You can't pick and chose who gets first amendment rights. I feel the same way about flag burning or hate speech.

[JohnRM]

why is it that I can't take this poll seriously? I wonder? hum? Is it the methodology? (leading questions, illdefined choices?, ideological bias?). Could it be the grammatical failings? Nah.

Its the subject. This is AMERICA, land of free speech. No where in the constitution or bill of rights does it say that patriotism trumps freedom of speech. Ever hear of the expression "buyer beware"? If someone wants to hang their tin medal in your face, and you don't have the capacity to distinguish a fair-weather patriot from a good man/woman, then you deserve a fleecing.

Again, the 1st Amendment was not written to protect fraud. It was written, in the simplest terms, to protect your right to any belief system that you choose and to express it. Lying about being the recipient of a medal of distinction is no such thing. It is fraud, plain and simple. There are laws against such things. If this kind of fraud can be protected by perversion of the 1st Amendment, then where does it end? By your measure, people should have the right to commit identity fraud.

[seahorse3]

John, lying about having earned a medal is not "fraud" as defined by law. Fraud requires a proof of damages, actual monetary damages. Fraud is saying this car's transmission is fine knowing that it isn't, the buyer purchases relying on that statement, the buyer, having relied on the fradulent statement, incurs the cost of repairing the transmission. Fraud as recognized by the law has always required proof of individual harm to be actionable. The current argument against this law's constitutionality is that it isn't fraud, bc there is no actionable harm. It may be immoral, as all would agree, but morality is not criminalized, for morality is a belief protected by the First Amendment. And, the court's have continually protected as free speech the right of "puffing" by companies saying this is the "best" product or this is the cheapest product. It also protects, in many cases, would would be considered slander or libel - both require, in most cases, proof of actual harm to be actionable and some actors like public officials can basically be slandered all you want to slander them - John Kerry was "swift boated" for example.

So, the Constitutional issue is the government criminalizing speech, more specifically, criminalizing what is true versus untrue, which is the basis of free speach. Free speach in society, is the process of allowing opposing points of view for allowing members of that society to determine the truth. Free speach, aka the process of determining the truth in society, is the moral protected by the First Amendment. The government hasn't historically attempted to determined what "truth" is by criminalizing speech which it views as untrue. Again, it speach is slander or fraudulent the common law allows aggrieved individuals to file suit for it. It is a dangerous precedent to allow a government to determine truth by criminalizing speech.

[bratticus]

John, lying about having earned a medal is not "fraud" as defined by law. Fraud requires a proof of damages, actual monetary damages.

1. person lies about having earned a medal
2. person gets your vote
3. person gets your tax money

Sounds like fraud.

[seahorse3]

No Bratticus, it isn't. Taxpayers don't have individual standing to sue the Federal government based on tax expenditures. The Constitutional remedy to get better bang for your tax dollars or better politicians is to simply vote them out of office. Politicians lie all the time to get elected and lie about all sorts of things, not just winning medals. That's why so many MSM shows have entire "fact check" segments. If we are going to criminalize what people say to get elected, we wouldn't have anyone in office. Free speech, the truth, is best handled in the court of public opinion. Its a dangerous step to start criminalizing it. Lying about medals is not so different than one's Constitutional "right" to burn the US flag. It may not be our moral choice, but one has the "right" to do it. It may be deemed immoral by many, but its not criminal, it is protected "speech."

Ultimately, the Supreme Court will rule on this issue of "stolen valor." The current court is likely to uphold the law, though I would disagree with the decision if they do. So, we'll have to wait and see how they analyze it. But, now you have the other side of the argument.

Personally, I hope they find it unconstitutional. I don't like the precedent. I am a veteran btw. At one time in my life, I thought burning the flag should be criminalized. I don't believe that anymore. And I don't think stolen valor should be a crime either.

[Pops]

I think the law is probably unconstitutional and should be.

Here's what the judge said in Alverez:

“The right to speak and write whatever one chooses – including, to some degree, worthless, offensive and demonstrable untruths – without cowering in fear of a powerful government is, in our view, an essential component of the protection afforded by the First Amendment,”

I'd think a lot of people here would think that's a good ruling.

[careinke]

I think the law is probably unconstitutional and should be.

Here's what the judge said in Alverez:

“The right to speak and write whatever one chooses – including, to some degree, worthless, offensive and demonstrable untruths – without cowering in fear of a powerful government is, in our view, an essential component of the protection afforded by the First Amendment,”

I'd think a lot of people here would think that's a good ruling.

I agree (suprised PStar?). When I was on Active duty, and my troops would become upset about some Americans burning a US flag, I always pointed out that this was proof the First Amendment was alive and well. It's when the government decides you can't burn a flag, that I become worried.

That said, I still think someone who passes himself off as a Medal of Honor recipient, and is not, is still a scum bag. Although I will protect PStar's right to call it a "Tin Medal", I still think he is a scumbag for degrading the Congressional Medal of Honor like that.

I guess a lot of people are now pretending they are Navy Seals. Having worked with Seals before, trust me, if someone tells you they are or were a Navy Seal, they probably are not. First, it is a bad a dangerous OpSec practice. Second, you always have to prove yourself to the drunks who think they can take you, or worse you could get blindsided. Third, bragging in public is just not in their personality type. A Seal is not going to tell you he is a seal until he knows you very well, or is on a mission with you.

[basil_hayden]

But find that crap on a resume and it leads to immediate firing. Go figure.

[careinke]

And just to clarify things; I had no idea I was "degrading" a Congressional Medal of Honoree. That was not my intent. I was commenting on a stupid, angry, biased poll.

Ok, I'll accept that degrading the Medal of Honor was not your intent.

Why is the poll stupid? The subject is current as the Supreme court is taking it up, and the title of the thread is nickname of the current law.

Angry? I did not intend to sound angry, I was honestly soliciting opinion on this, and as you can see, they are pretty varied.

Biased? I think I covered all the different views you could have, pretty well.

Perhaps you are angry and biased about the poster , and you quickly jumped to conclusions. You seem to do that a lot. I am glad we agree the law is an infringement on the First Amendment.

[Pretorian]

But find that crap on a resume and it leads to immediate firing. Go figure.

any crap on a resume leads to immediate firing. If its crappy enough, that is.

btw Napoleon got to say something about your decorations:

“A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon.”

[careinke]

I'm not sure how calling a person a scumbag is a physical assault. Are there certain words one should not use? How about when you call religions you don't like "weird" or dangerous. Is weird less of an assault word than scumbag?