High court dilemma: Can lie about medal be crime?

[jimnyc]

I don't think assholes that pull this shit should get away with it based on "freedom of speech". I'm confident others feel differently. My stance is based on protecting those who protect us, and protecting the meaning behind the awards these men earn for bravery and character.


WASHINGTON (AP) — Xavier Alvarez stood up at a public meeting and called himself a wounded war veteran who had received the top military award, the Medal of Honor. He was lying about his medal, his wounds and his military service, but he wasn't the first man to invent war exploits.

He was, however, one of the first people prosecuted under a 2006 federal law aimed at curbing false claims of military valor.

Concerns that the law improperly limits speech and turns people into criminals for things they say, rather than do, are at the heart of the Supreme Court's review of his case and the Stolen Valor Act.

Veterans groups have come to the aid of the Obama administration, which calls the law a narrowly crafted effort to protect the system of military awards that was established during the Revolutionary War by Gen. George Washington. The high court will hear the case Wednesday, which is Washington's 280th birthday.

"They're committing fraud. They're impersonating somebody else. They take on attributes of somebody else, attributes of a hero who served honorably," said Pam Sterner, whose college term paper calling for the law wound up in the hands of members of Congress. "When you do that, impersonating someone else, that's fraud, not freedom of speech."

Civil liberties groups, writers, publishers and news media outlets, including The Associated Press, have told the justices they worry the law, and especially the administration's defense of it, could lead to more attempts by government to regulate speech.

http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-dilemma-lie-medal-crime-100520506.html

[fj1200]

I don't think assholes that pull this shit should get away with it based on "freedom of speech". I'm confident others feel differently. My stance is based on protecting those who protect us, and protecting the meaning behind the awards these men earn for bravery and character.

"They're committing fraud. They're impersonating somebody else. They take on attributes of somebody else, attributes of a hero who served honorably," said Pam Sterner, whose college term paper calling for the law wound up in the hands of members of Congress. "When you do that, impersonating someone else, that's fraud, not freedom of speech."
http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-dilemma-lie-medal-crime-100520506.html

Hmm...

Fraud (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud) must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

... not sure where the injury is to call it fraud. They're not really impersonating anyone in particular.

[jimnyc]

Hmm...


... not sure where the injury is to call it fraud. They're not really impersonating anyone in particular.

I can't make a case for fraud based on the current laws. But I do think the Stolen Valor Act is excellent and I hope it remains on the books.

[logroller]

Hmm...


... not sure where the injury is to call it fraud. They're not really impersonating anyone in particular.
Arent they impersonating Medal of honor recipients, as a class, who more often than not have perished in defense of the united states and it's citizens-- requiring the grantees of such an honor to uphold the integrity of the medal for those unable to defend the honors beatowed upon them. i would parallel this law with trademark protection; where a risk of dilution, whether realized or not, poses a significant likelihood of injury to warrant legal protection.

[ConHog]

I can't make a case for fraud based on the current laws. But I do think the Stolen Valor Act is excellent and I hope it remains on the books.

Stolen Valor is an unconstitutional law, no matter how much I agree with it.

However, if a stealer of valor were to have his ass kicked by a real vet, I wouldn't vote for prosecution either.

[fj1200]

I can't make a case for fraud based on the current laws. But I do think the Stolen Valor Act is excellent and I hope it remains on the books.

I think they have a high hurdle to meet when implementing a law like this.


Arent they impersonating Medal of honor recipients, as a class, who more often than not have perished in defense of the united states and it's citizens-- requiring the grantees of such an honor to uphold the integrity of the medal for those unable to defend the honors beatowed upon them. i would parallel this law with trademark protection; where a risk of dilution, whether realized or not, poses a significant likelihood of injury to warrant legal protection.

Trademark might be an acceptable standard but there is no standard required for recipients to continue upholding that I'm aware of. If I claim to have won a Pulitzer do they have recourse against me?

[ConHog]

I think they have a high hurdle to meet when implementing a law like this.



Trademark might be an acceptable standard but there is no standard required for recipients to continue upholding that I'm aware of. If I claim to have won a Pulitzer do they have recourse against me?

If they used their alleged Medal of Honor to gain something of value then I could maybe see this being illegal. Otherwise , it's just scummy.

[logroller]

Stolen Valor is an unconstitutional law, no matter how much I agree with it.

However, if a stealer of valor were to have his ass kicked by a real vet, I wouldn't vote for prosecution either.
like I posted earlier, it's a trademark enforcement- an authorized power.

[fj1200]

like I posted earlier, it's a trademark enforcement- an authorized power.

You'll have to show the government is able to trademark and that the MoH qualifies.

[ConHog]

You'll have to show the government is able to trademark and that the MoH qualifies.



The government CAN trademark, but if there is no *TM* or circled R next to it, it generally isn't considered to be a trademarked item.


For instance, this

3307

is clearly a registered trademark, but that doesn't mean a person can't say US Army without worrying about being convicted of trademark infringement.

this however

3308

doesn't appear to be registered

[logroller]

Arent they impersonating Medal of honor recipients, as a class, who more often than not have perished in defense of the united states and it's citizens-- requiring the grantees of such an honor to uphold the integrity of the medal for those unable to defend the honors beatowed upon them. i would parallel this law with trademark protection; where a risk of dilution, whether realized or not, poses a significant likelihood of injury to warrant legal protection.



Trademark might be an acceptable standard but there is no standard required for recipients to continue upholding that I'm aware of. If I claim to have won a Pulitzer do they have recourse against me?
Oops, autocorrect fail--I'd meant to say grantor--Congress.


You'll have to show the government is able to trademark and that the MoH qualifies.
Latham Act-- 15 USC 22

You don't need to register a trademark for it to be considered valid-- but I believe the Medal of Honor Society has done so.

I gather this all hinges on the damages/defamation; as the Stolen Valor Act makes no distinction, it was ruled as too vague by the liberal activist 9th circuit court;). Which I understand, and am compelled to agree with the court-- I thought it made the distinction of some damage caused or undeserved benefit received.
Certainly where some commercial interest exists, say, selling a product which says made in the USA when its not, its easier to prove damages; but what is honor, and is it a tangible interests that is subject to dilution. Tough ? to answer with any certainty.

[ConHog]

Oops, autocorrect fail--I'd meant to say grantor--Congress.


Latham Act-- 15 USC 22

You don't need to register a trademark for it to be considered valid-- but I believe the Medal of Honor Society has done so.

I gather this all hinges on the damages/defamation; as the Stolen Valor Act makes no distinction, it was ruled as too vague by the liberal activist 9th circuit court;). Which I understand, and am compelled to agree with the court-- I thought it made the distinction of some damage caused or undeserved benefit received.
Certainly where some commercial interest exists, say, selling a product which says made in the USA when its not, its easier to prove damages; but what is honor, and is it a tangible interests that is subject to dilution. Tough ? to answer with any certainty.

I'm not sure a trademark infringement case could be made against someone for merely claiming they have been awarded a MoH.

Could Coca Cola win a case against someone who says they drank a Coke? I doubt it.

Seems to me, that the trademark infringement case would be against anyone who is making fake medals.

[gabosaurus]

Since when is lying a crime? Not only do people lie on a daily basis, but they hire lawyers to defend their lies. And if they are wealthy enough, they get away with lying.

Like ConHog said, if I show you a fake medal of honor, and use it as a ruse to borrow $5,000 from someone, I am not guilty of a crime. I am guilty of being a lying sack of shit. But we have elected lying sacks of shit as president.

[ConHog]

Since when is lying a crime? Not only do people lie on a daily basis, but they hire lawyers to defend their lies. And if they are wealthy enough, they get away with lying.

Like ConHog said, if I show you a fake medal of honor, and use it as a ruse to borrow $5,000 from someone, I am not guilty of a crime. I am guilty of being a lying sack of shit. But we have elected lying sacks of shit as president.

In fact I'm pretty sure it has became a requirement.

[fj1200]

Since when is lying a crime? Not only do people lie on a daily basis, but they hire lawyers to defend their lies. And if they are wealthy enough, they get away with lying.

Like ConHog said, if I show you a fake medal of honor, and use it as a ruse to borrow $5,000 from someone, I am not guilty of a crime. I am guilty of being a lying sack of shit. But we have elected lying sacks of shit as president.

That's kind of like fraud and stuff, it's kinda like a, you know, like a crime.

[ConHog]

That's kind of like fraud and stuff, it's kinda like a, you know, like a crime.

I don't even think it's that. Not unless there is actually a question as to do you have a MoH? And it's a deciding factor in whether you get the loan or not. Otherwise it would be hard to prove it's anything more than a lie.

[fj1200]

^It was fraudulently used as the "ruse."

[ConHog]

^It was fraudulently used as the "ruse."

Good luck making it stick...

[fj1200]

Good luck making it stick...

Good luck showing it to a jury... ;)

[ConHog]

Good luck showing it to a jury... ;)

You're right, I don't believe any prosecutor would ever touch such a case.

[fj1200]

^Considering it's likely a civil case...

[ConHog]

^Considering it's likely a civil case...

Then why are we talking about making lying ILLEGAL?

[fj1200]

^Because the government passed a law criminalizing false speech.

[logroller]

Well I guess this Alvarez went free on a technicality-- he's full of shit and everything he says is rubbish-- thus, his lies couldn't actually defame anyone. From the Ninth Circuit Ruling, emphasis is mine.


Apparently, Alvarez makes a hobby of lying about himself to make people think he is "a psycho from the mental ward with Rambo stories." The summer before his election to the water district board, a woman informed the FBI about Alvarez's propensity for making false claims about his military past. Alvarez told her that he won the Medal of Honor for rescuing the American Ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis, and that he had been shot in the back as he returned to the embassy to save the American flag. Alvarez reportedly told another woman that he was a Vietnam veteran helicopter pilot who had been shot down but then, with the help of his buddies, was able to get the chopper back into the sky.

In addition to his lies about military service, Alvarez has claimed to have played hockey for the Detroit Red Wings, to have worked as a police officer (who was fired for using excessive force), and to have been secretly married to a Mexican starlet. As the district court observed, Alvarez "live[s] in a world, a make-believe world where [he] just make[s] up stories all the time . . . . [T[here's no credibility in anything [he] say[s]."

Well OK, I guess I see how this is free speech issue. B/C If all you do is lie, criminalizing lies would effectively silence you. Were it not so, any actor portraying a decorated service member would be guilty as well. As much as I think the movie Green Zone with Matt Damon was crap, its hardly criminal; though I do think I have a civil case demanding my money back.:lol:

[CSM]

It is my opinion that anyone can pretend to be a hero with as many medals as they can fabricate and tell whatever war stories they want under the protection of the first amendment. That being said, I also feel that those who support the pretender (especially after proof that their claim is a lie) are either just plain stupid or aiding in continuing the lie. It seems to me that once such hero-wannabees are shown to be imposters, most folks would shun them. Criminal? Probably not. Despicable? Most assuredley.

[trobinett]

Stolen Valor is an unconstitutional law, no matter how much I agree with it.

First of all, the 1st amendment doesn't protect someone lying. 2nd, if the writers of that amendment could of had a poster boy for WHY they wrote the law, it would be this case. What a slime ball. They should take a 100 points off of his credit report.:lol:

[ConHog]

First of all, the 1st amendment doesn't protect someone lying. 2nd, if the writers of that amendment could of had a poster boy for WHY they wrote the law, it would be this case. What a slime ball. They should take a 100 points off of his credit report.:lol:

Neither does the first amendment protect the truth.. It protects FREE SPEECH. Which is defined as neither truth nor lies.

I'll tell you who MIGHT have a civil case here. Actual MoH winners might could sue this douche bag for slandering their noble service. I'd find in favor of them in a heart beat.

[LuvRPgrl]

I think they have a high hurdle to meet when implementing a law like this.



Trademark might be an acceptable standard but there is no standard required for recipients to continue upholding that I'm aware of. If I claim to have won a Pulitzer do they have recourse against me?


would it include Al Gore and his having created the internet?

I would totally oppose this, cuz it opens the door, and the govt always goes thru it

I Think the people whoare exposed should be shamed and made as miserable as possible, like many people refusing to do business with them, a news article with his large pic in it declaring he is a phony claiming to have won the moh.,

[CSM]

would it include Al Gore and his having created the internet?

I would totally oppose this, cuz it opens the door, and the govt always goes thru it

I Think the people whoare exposed should be shamed and made as miserable as possible, like many people refusing to do business with them, a news article with his large pic in it declaring he is a phony claiming to have won the moh.,


Yep.

[avatar4321]

It's a crime to threaten people. It's a crime to lie to the police. It's a crime to impersonate law enforcement and doctors.

The First Amendment may give you the ability to say anything, but when what you say furthers a crime, then you should be arrested.

The crime here isn't for saying he's a soldier who was given the medal of honor. It's for pretending to be one. What he said is just the evidence of the crime.

[ConHog]

It's a crime to threaten people. It's a crime to lie to the police. It's a crime to impersonate law enforcement and doctors.

The First Amendment may give you the ability to say anything, but when what you say furthers a crime, then you should be arrested.

The crime here isn't for saying he's a soldier who was given the medal of honor. It's for pretending to be one. What he said is just the evidence of the crime.

For that to apply, we need to have an actual law against impersonating a soldier. Currently there is not one. And even then, wouldn't it be similar to the crime of impersonating a police officer and would only apply if that person were actually trying to perform the duties of a solider? I mean let's say you're at a bar and meet a woman and you work at McDonalds but tell her you're a police officer, that is NOT illegal. BUT if you pull that same woman over for speeding and tell her you're a police officer, that IS illegal.

Make sense?