• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court strikes down Stolen Valor law

poweRob said:
I get pissed then I feel pity. How sad are you when you have to pretend to be someone else just to like yourself?
Click to expand...

I'm the opposite: I feel pity, and then I get pissed.

Most of these people are just...sad, but here's an example of a creep described as a "grifter" who has posed as a Navy SEAL on dating sites and who's now been busted for posing as a Victoria's Secret owner and raping a 15-year old:

Creepy grifter forced teen to have sex after threatening to post explicit pics of her: feds  - NY Daily News
 
justabubba said:
reprehensible speech - even when stealing valor - is protected speech
roberts got this one right
Click to expand...

I haven't followed this, but unfortunately I may have to agree. There may be a hole between the Constitution and the UMCJ that this falls through. People run around wearing uniforms all the time with military rank and insignia that aren't theirs. Nothing has ever been done. It could be that the law allowing the military and/or Congress to confer honors upon the military is difficient in some way; and there is where the remedy lies.

Personally I think it is wrong, fraudulent and shameful for people to do this.
 
I don't get it. How is this protected free speech again? We are living in a backwards world. I think the Supreme Court is ?#*&ing with us. They must laugh at us all over drinks after session.
 
jambalaya said:
I don't get it. How is this protected free speech again? We are living in a backwards world. I think the Supreme Court is ?#*&ing with us. They must laugh at us all over drinks after session.
Click to expand...
someone says they experienced military action they did not is found to be a lie, not a crime. not illegal. lies are included under free speech (politicians depend on it)
that differs from fraud. if someone lies about their military service, such that they then realized material benefits because of the lie, then they have engaged in fraud. that fraud remains illegal and subject to criminal prosecution
 
justabubba said:
someone says they experienced military action they did not is found to be a lie, not a crime. not illegal. lies are included under free speech (politicians depend on it)
that differs from fraud. if someone lies about their military service, such that they then realized material benefits because of the lie, then they have engaged in fraud. that fraud remains illegal and subject to criminal prosecution
Click to expand...

 
American said:
I haven't followed this, but unfortunately I may have to agree. There may be a hole between the Constitution and the UMCJ that this falls through. People run around wearing uniforms all the time with military rank and insignia that aren't theirs. Nothing has ever been done. It could be that the law allowing the military and/or Congress to confer honors upon the military is difficient in some way; and there is where the remedy lies.

Personally I think it is wrong, fraudulent and shameful for people to do this.
Click to expand...

Of course. Nobody actually approves of this behavior, any more than people approve of the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at military funerals. But I absolutely think both should be legal. To restrict speech, you have to demonstrate some measurable harm that speech does to other people. Telling someone I got a purple heart in 'Nam does not do that. I'm not comfortable with Congress deciding this sort of speech is just too reprehensible so we have to restrict it even when its not harmful, but that sort of speech is totally ok. If we restrict lying about military service, why not restrict lying about police service? Being a firefighter? EMT? I'm a flight instructor, it's a dangerous job that I think deserves some respect, why can't we make it illegal to lie about being a flight instructor? Teachers are arguably just as important to our country's future as soldiers, why isn't it illegal to lie to people about being a teacher?

Your religion is ok, but that one over there doesn't count because it's weird/wrong in my personal opinion.

The 1st amendment doesn't have an asterix.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
But you are getting something material for it. The person that sparked this case was leveraging the respect from others for his lie, to gain a political seat. That seat comes with a salary, perks, and prestige. Most liars that claim something they are not like this are looking in some way to gain from it.
Click to expand...

In which case, prosecute him for fraud. There's no need to make lying about being in the military a separate crime, when doing so for material gain is already a crime.
 
I believe Congress just needs to do a better job of writing the bill. There has to be some gray area to exploit on this. One such way would be to make medals and the citations associated with them a For Official Use Only protected item. An explanation is below:

UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO- is primarily a Department of Defense phrase/acronym, used for documents or products which contain material which is exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act. It is treated as confidential, which means it cannot be discarded in the open trash, made available to the general public, or posted on an uncontrolled website. It can, however, be shared with individuals with a need to know the content, while still under the control of the individual possessing the document or product

From a military member point of view, this makes it much harder for me to properly wear my uniforms. The reason being that this would require all medals, ribbons, and devices that are associated with any sort of military award or accomplishment be pulled from the PX. Then, it would require a tighter hold on them by an outside agency that has some sort of military liaison (because you know it would get contracted to civilians) that knows how to read FOUO documents. It would also require personnel in isolated locations to jump through hoops to get their uniform items. It would require a new, joint service database with all awards in it so all award/device distribution centers can see if someone rates the medal they are attempting to buy. I'm sure there is a myriad of other issues I'm not thinking of as well. You know what? Thats all good with me if it keeps some dirt bag from posing.
 
justabubba said:
reprehensible speech - even when stealing valor - is protected speech
roberts got this one right
Click to expand...

However, fraud isn't protected speech.

Jesse McAdams, anyone?
 
apdst said:
However, fraud isn't protected speech.

Jesse McAdams, anyone?
Click to expand...

but fraud is already illegal; nothing in this ruling changes that fact
 
How often does this even happen? Why was this worth spending congressional time on in the first place?
 
Deuce said:
How often does this even happen? Why was this worth spending congressional time on in the first place?
Click to expand...

Because our national situations change from time to time and Congress needs to examine new issues?

I think a majority of us can agree that a jerk posing as a service member is pitiable. And it does really make me mad just as flag-burning does. But this is "harmless." If opportunity is being gained/fraud is being committed, there are already laws in place to deal with this.
 
danarhea said:
In the aftermath of the Obamacare decision, this one flew under the radar, but it is revealing something very important about the political makeup of the court, and the direction that Chief Justice John Roberts is taking. Although the majority opinion was written by Kennedy, Roberts once again sided with the Liberal faction of the court in striking this law down.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy "first amendment" here. Those who wear medals that they never earned do not deserve any of the valor that they steal from those who actually fought and possibly died to earn theirs. This decision is flawed, and although this would have passed without Roberts' vote, I am disappointed that Roberts would side with those scumbag liars who steal what isn't theirs.

And now the question that we are dying to know the answer to - Could John Roberts be the next David Souter?

Article is here.
Click to expand...

As much as I really hate when people claim to be ex-soldiers, wearing the uniform and the medals, I believe that it is indeed a freedom of speech issue. Remember, your speech is protected. But you are not protected from being offended. I hate the WBC yet I still think they have the right to protest. So for me this issue is the same.
 
As I said earlier, our Legislative Branch should get smarter about the way they conduct business. When something is blantantly wrong, everyone knows its wrong, but the Constitution does not allow you to change it, you have to find other ways. Those ways usually make it harder for the citizens that will benefit as well. As the proposal I made earlier would. I don't believe it is usurping the Constitution in this particular case. It is simply reclassifying government used/issued documents. You can call that an end around, whatever you like. But it works, it doesn't infringe on freedom of speech, and it allows the military to keep a close hold on their awards system. It would also (LOL) create jobs because someone has to create the database I mentioned and someone has to distribute the items. Of course, when you have idiots like the 2 below running our gov't, what do you expect? Certainly not creative thinking.
imagesCAEFL43G.jpg
26407mstuart-smalley-posters.jpg
 
molten_dragon said:
I think they made the right decision. This is kind of like the Westboro Baptist Church stuff. Yes, it's despicable, but that's what free speech is about.

Although in this case, it's kind of hard to take advantage of, since I would imagine in a lot of cases if you lied about being a soldier to gain some sort of benefit (other than respect you didn't earn), that would be fraud, and you could still be prosecuted for it.
Click to expand...

Good point. As putrid as the WBC are they have the freedom of speech. Stifle their speech then the next political party in power may stifle your freedom of speech.

If we made it a criminal offense then what do we about 1/2 truths?

In this upcoming billion dollar political season we are going to see hundreds of half-truths, do they classify as illegal? We just recently saw a thread on a FOX news report that Obama wanted silverware taken away from Hispanics at a luncheon he was speaking at. The attempt was to show that Obama didn't trust hispanics but after some research it was shown that the secret service has done this before other groups. Would this be considered lying and illegal? It is all a slippery slope in deciding laws.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I believe Congress just needs to do a better job of writing the bill. There has to be some gray area to exploit on this. One such way would be to make medals and the citations associated with them a For Official Use Only protected item. An explanation is below:

UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO- is primarily a Department of Defense phrase/acronym, used for documents or products which contain material which is exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act. It is treated as confidential, which means it cannot be discarded in the open trash, made available to the general public, or posted on an uncontrolled website. It can, however, be shared with individuals with a need to know the content, while still under the control of the individual possessing the document or product

From a military member point of view, this makes it much harder for me to properly wear my uniforms. The reason being that this would require all medals, ribbons, and devices that are associated with any sort of military award or accomplishment be pulled from the PX. Then, it would require a tighter hold on them by an outside agency that has some sort of military liaison (because you know it would get contracted to civilians) that knows how to read FOUO documents. It would also require personnel in isolated locations to jump through hoops to get their uniform items. It would require a new, joint service database with all awards in it so all award/device distribution centers can see if someone rates the medal they are attempting to buy. I'm sure there is a myriad of other issues I'm not thinking of as well. You know what? Thats all good with me if it keeps some dirt bag from posing.
Click to expand...
If certain medals & ribbons are made FOUO, it would seem you couldn't even wear them because no one has a "need to know" that you've earned them and/or you're making them "available to the general public" by wearing them. You'd also be possibly exacerbating the problem because, if the medals and ribbons are FOUO, then they can't be "posted on an uncontrolled website" so no one could know what they look like; an impostor wouldn't even need to procure a replica -- they could just make one up.
 
Last edited:
It's not illegal for the same reason making any other self aggrandizing but relatively harmless claims about yourself isn't illegal. It would set a seriously bad precedent to criminalize such things.
 
Anagram said:
I disagree. I feel the law as written was applied to broadly. If they limited it to only cases where lying about MOH were fraud I'd be alright with it. But when it criminalizes speech where there is no material gain, it overreaches.
Click to expand...

I almost agree with you, think I think of how impersonating a police officer is always a crime no matter if you're trying to get something out of it (legal fraud) or not. But being awarded the MOH in this country does brings advantages. People are eager to give you a job, or virtually anything because we revere our heroes. So claiming you are a MOH recipient when you are not - it's always fraud.

I'd just as soon the penalty under law be the public posting of your name, picture and what medal you falsely claimed, repeated for months. Let nature take it's course. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
It's not illegal for the same reason making any other self aggrandizing but relatively harmless claims about yourself isn't illegal. It would set a seriously bad precedent to criminalize such things.
Click to expand...


I don't know why anyone would want to misrepresent themselves in this manner, unless they were seriously lacking in character in the first place. Do you?
 
j-mac said:
I don't know why anyone would want to misrepresent themselves in this manner, unless they were seriously lacking in character in the first place. Do you?
Click to expand...

Lacking character is not a crime.
 
I am the Lord, your God, and you shall have no other gods before me
:roll:
Hatuey said:
It's not illegal for the same reason making any other self aggrandizing but relatively harmless claims about yourself isn't illegal. It would set a seriously bad precedent to criminalize such things.
Click to expand...
 
A nod from the Supreme Court is not necessary. Once these imposters are found out society shuns them. There is no worse coward than a person who falsely holds himself out to be a hero.

While living in Florida there was a man who told everyone he was a former military officer, we found out he was not and confronted him, he then told the truth; he never served. He would get on base, as his car had a sticker which was reserved for officers from a previous owner and he would be saluted. He told us he took girl friends on base to impress them. He was older than most of us; he was in his 50's. After his confession he showed up at a party or two and then was never heard from again...
 
Grizzly Adams said:
If certain medals & ribbons are made FOUO, it would seem you couldn't even wear them because no one has a "need to know" that you've earned them and/or you're making them "available to the general public" by wearing them.
Click to expand...
That would be to the discretion of the DOD at that point. They can make it a blanket need to know while still maintaining the requirement that it be under the control of the person it was issued to.
Grizzly Adams said:
You'd also be possibly exacerbating the problem because, if the medals and ribbons are FOUO, then they can't be "posted on an uncontrolled website" so no one could know what they look like; an impostor wouldn't even need to procure a replica -- they could just make one up.
Click to expand...
1) The image of the medal is not FOUO, the actual medal is. Big difference. 2)When someone in the military sees someone wearing an non-existant medal, they simply call them out on it. Also, the erroneous citation would not be marked as FOUO. The way it is now, someone can simply go to the local Army/Navy Surplus and purchase a legitimate medal. They can then find a citation online, alter it, and no one can prove it isn't valid unless they do some serious leg work. With this system, when some guy shows up at the VFW with a Coke bottle cap bent into a medal and calls it the Libya Campaign Medal, he'll be out on his can with a quickness.
 
clownboy said:
I almost agree with you, think I think of how impersonating a police officer is always a crime no matter if you're trying to get something out of it (legal fraud) or not. But being awarded the MOH in this country does brings advantages. People are eager to give you a job, or virtually anything because we revere our heroes. So claiming you are a MOH recipient when you are not - it's always fraud.

I'd just as soon the penalty under law be the public posting of your name, picture and what medal you falsely claimed, repeated for months. Let nature take it's course. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Actually lots of people wear police uniforms for costumes and never get into trouble. Not to mention when you roleplay in the bedro....umm...nvm! :3oops:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom