| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Culture Wars | |
| Judge: Law penalizing fake heroes unconstitutional | |
| 2010-07-17 | |
| From Associated Press so it's brief. DENVER -- A law that makes it illegal to lie about being a war hero is unconstitutional because it violates free speech, a federal judge ruled Friday as he dismissed a case against a Colorado man who claimed he received two military medals. Rick Glen Strandlof claimed he was an ex-Marine who was wounded in Iraq and received the Purple Heart and Silver Star, but the military had no record he ever served. He was charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to falsely claim to have won a military medal. U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn dismissed the case and said the law is unconstitutional, ruling the government did not show it has a compelling reason to restrict that type of statement.
This case is a perfect example of that disconnect. Doesn't that idiot judge understand who maintains the order so his pomposity can preside over the court? But he'll be the first to condemn the military when the hordes fail to defend his sanctum sanctorum while the rest of Denver is overrun. This asshole judge should be sent to Ft. Carson to explain to the 4ID why he has no compelling interest in defending their honor. This will not end well. | |
| Posted by:Deacon Blues |
| #11 Then it must be free speech to impersonate a cop or a judge? And to impersonate a President. |
| Posted by: Jack Salami 2010-07-17 19:45 |
| #10 Invite him to visit the Legion hall or VFW, introduce him to some of us old guys. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-07-17 17:21 |
| #9 From comments on Ace: I support the "Vigilantes Kicking the Dog S**t Out of Lying Disgraceful Mutherf***ers in Broad Daylight at the Local VFW Hall Act of 2010" |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-07-17 16:37 |
| #8 Isn't the problem here actually that the MSM will only check the backgrounds (service, medals) of veterans who's political positions they disagree with? Then there is the left-wing crew who consider people like this 'heroes' for impersonating a veteran. Don't be surprised about where this clown ends up working. |
| Posted by: Free Radical 2010-07-17 16:37 |
| #7 Hmmmmm...get em drunk and tattoo "I'm a cowardly liar and stealer of others honor and valor" across their forehead? Best to check how big a forehead they have first and then pic your font size appropriately. Prolly start with a 26 Times New Roman? My point: make your art match the canvas. /jk kinda |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-07-17 16:09 |
| #6 Perhaps cases like these are best handled by the citizenry, not the judiciary. A thorough arse-whoopin would probably leave him with a much clearer picture than this judge has. |
| Posted by: bigjim-CA 2010-07-17 16:03 |
| #5 Ace is right in that this is a terrible test case, as the individual in question was committing actual fraud, there were damages beyond the simple misrepresentation. I'm just not clear on whether public falsehood should be protected speech. Let's clear the immediate political element from the question. Say I stomp around claiming to be black, or Jewish, and exploit this claimed (but false) status; however, I limit my benefit to political advantage rather than government benefits or financial donations. My political opponents can certainly exploit my falsehood (when discovered) to their hearts' content, and shred me in the public eye. My falsehood will undermine every political group I'm in contact with, wreak havoc on every victory I had any involvement in, open the door for re-ligation of every settled question in my vicinity. Why exactly do we need a law to pile further abuse upon my annihilated carcass? Yes, my behavior is justifiably abominable, but it's the sort of misrepresentation which blows itself up once properly exposed. Now, if our hypothetical "Stolen Ethnicity Act" restricted itself to penalties upon misrepresentation where there are non-political - IE, financial - benefits to the fraud, well, then. That's just the "Stolen [X]" equivalent of "hate crimes" or "gun crimes" statutes, and the courts seem to be jake with that sort of borderline-constitutional intensifier-riders upon existing crimes. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2010-07-17 13:52 |
| #4 Seems like identity theft. Although you are not stealing someone's specific identity, it seems like you are stealing something that does not belong to you; valor. If a person misrepresented themself as a teacher, doctor, lawyer, or judge, it would not be a free-speech issue. Bum decision on the part of the judge. Lying and misrepresentation does not seem like a free speech issue. The Stolen Valor Act or other acts, passed by a legislative body, should not be so easily overturned by an arrogant and elitist judge. Hope the decision is appealed and reversed. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-07-17 12:53 |
| #3 Did he try to use it to get any thing or was he just being a complete loser? How do you prosecute a pathological liar that hasn't used the position to gain any thing? |
| Posted by: miscellaneous 2010-07-17 10:50 |
| #2 The judge is very wrong here. Heroism impersonation is not just an "ego trip" on the part of the criminal, it inherently seeks to defraud. So the important question is, does a particular act represent "legal fraud" or "illegal fraud"? "Legal fraud" neither demands nor receives "consideration", a valuable return, for that lie. Importantly, this is not just personal consideration, but any consideration. For example, say a charity organization has an unpaid spokesman who falsely claims to be a war hero, when soliciting contributions. Though he does not directly personally profit from his fraud, the charity does. This is the same reason commercials have a disclaimer "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV", for example. An exception to this is performance acting, in which someone could play a war hero, because the general assumption is that he is just an actor acting, even if he is Audie Murphy. But even the status of a popular actor has to be taken into account in commercials, where it is noted that they are a "paid endorser" of some product or service. Another variety of "legal" fraud is the aforementioned lying to a woman in a bar hoping to get sex. While there is certainly consideration involved, the courts have wisely decided that while heroism alone might help a person get laid, if they are dog ass ugly, heroism alone won't cut it. Unless the defrauded is easy. Heck of a decision there. Importantly, the courts have previously held that using false heroism to influence the political debate is also fraudulent, because that comes under the increasingly strict laws government political contributions. So when some weener pretends to be a war hero for Code Pink, the courts have said they are violating the law. Political speech is supposed to be the strongest possible defense for freedom of speech, but even it has some pretty tight rules, in some respects. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-07-17 10:47 |
| #1 Then it must be free speech to impersonate a cop or a judge? |
| Posted by: Lumpy Anguting2786 2010-07-17 10:23 |