9th Circuit Strikes Down Ban on Military-Medal Lies, Cites Crush Video Opinion
A federal appeals court is citing the First Amendment in an opinion striking down a law barring lies about military honors or decorations.The 2-1 decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed the prosecution of a California man, Xavier Alvarez, who falsely claimed that he had won the Congressional Medal of Honor, Politico reports.
“We have no doubt that society would be better off if Alvarez would stop spreading worthless, ridiculous, and offensive untruths,” the opinion (PDF) said. “But, given our historical skepticism of permitting the government to police the line between truth and falsity, and between valuable speech and drivel, we presumptively protect all speech.”
Okay. I will readily admit to not being a legal scholar, and as such may have missed some level of nuance here. But did the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals really just rule that the government can't make laws against fraud and lies? Are we about to toss out every single conviction for perjury ever handed down? Yes, I understand that perjury is lying under very specific circumstances (in court), but it's still a matter of "the government [policing] the line between truth and falsity"
Now, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has a pretty abysmal track record, being overturned more than any other court, so it's entirely possible - probable, even - that this might be flipped back and the law will be allowed to stand. Personally, I think this whole matter could be handled without criminalization of the act of lying about medals - I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the .gov passing laws against every single instance of people lying for self-aggrandizement...
The solution is wonderfully simple: Remove all criminal penalties for veterans who enact retribution against someone for wearing medals/uniforms they didn't earn. If Johnny WannaBe wants to put on the Medal of Honor, four Purple Hearts, and a Victorian Cross even though the closest he's ever gotten to a battlefield is crossing the living room during a game of Medal of Honor, power to him. There should be no criminal penalties for acting like a dork. HOWEVER, if some octogenarian veteran who actually watched friends die at Normandy happens to beat Johnny to within an inch of his life for his stolen honor, that vet should get a parade, not jail time.
Even so, it's hard to imagine the "thought" process that the 9th followed when it ruled that folks could perpetuate fraud sans consequence.
That is all.
Link requiring lisinopril brought to us courtesy of stretch. Thanks for pointing this out.
8 comments:
HAY JAY,
As a result of this ruling, since it is OK to lie about military service to get political gain, it must follow it is OK to lie about political service for other gain.
http://gungeekrants.blogspot.com/2010/08/thanks-9th-circuit.html
One may lie. Lies are protected speech under the first amendment. One may not lie to defraud. The remedy, then, is not to forbid SPEECH, but to forbid the illegal use of the speech.
So if one uses a thing (a word, or a gun, say) to do a bad act, you don't ban the THING, you ban the ACT.
Anon:
If one gains something as the result of a lie, be it money, power, a job, respect, or access to the interior of someone's trousers, is that not fraud? If we're going to protect the thing all forms of the thing (speech) then let us ban all malicious uses thereof.
I get the comaprison with you're making between speech and guns. But speech is the result of a knowing act. It is not an inanimate object that can be taken to hand and used in the same manner as a gun. Likewise, it cannot ever be confiscated in the same way as a gun. Anyone with lips and a tongue can speak, regardless of any bans that are in place.
I need a better wordsmith to help me make this point more coherently.
Think you are a bit overly worked up about this. If someone lies about their military service (or really any other aspect of their life), their credibility is reduced to 0.
If you really must get the government involved, I would say the only thing they should do is make it easier to verify claims about military service.
I really don't think lying about military service is over and above lying about anything else. If you can't trust someone, thats the end of the story.
Lying has always been legal.
Using fraud in a contract has always been illegal.
If the SVA had only criminalized fraud involving medals in a way just like fraud that's illegal and doesn't, it would have been upheld.
But since it criminalized merely wearing a medal (even in a halloween costume or for filming a movie!) it really was unconstitutional.
Chris: Congress isn't going to (and constitutionally can't) ban lying to chicks (or to men!) to get in their pants, or to gain "respect".
Lying to gain money also isn't illegal in itself (panhandlers' stories are almost always lies, but break no laws) - lying materially in a contract is, and that's about it.
Fraud in a legal sense, such that there's a compelling interest exception to the First Amendment (ala panic induction, incitement to murder, etc.) is very, very tightly constrained - and for good reason.
Otherwise the State can chill all kinds of speech because some prosecutor "could kinda sorta maybe find a 'lie' in it if he didn't like you".
The scum who really do impersonate military personnel reveal themselves.
The proper response is mockery and ostracism, not legal action.
Sigivald beat me to it. I don't think much of liars myself, but criminalizing it is a very bad idea. Do we really want to give the government that kind of power? (as if it doesn't have enough already)
Sigivald: Point taken. Mockery and ostracism works for me!
I realize that the government could never ban lying to the point I was suggesting. I was kinda taking the extreme view just for sake of arguement. If the douchenozzle in question had lied about recieving the CMOH just to look like a tough guy in a board meeting, so be it. Vote his ass out and leave it at that.
My only concern is if this man lied about his service during a campaign. (I know, I know. Lying in a political campaign? SHOCKING!!) Spinning BS out of truth like we always see in campaigns is one thing. Flat out lying about your military service to gain votes or contributions is something entirely different, imho.
In this case it seems that the ostracism worked, but the whole idea that willfully spewing demonstrable falsehoods to voters is somehow condoned by the courts leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Sigvald,
The Stolen Valor Act DID NOT criminalize the mere wearing of unearned decorations as costume items.
Thanks for falling for the propaganda. Try reading the bill, next time -- it's not quite two pages long.
It criminalized "falsley representing" your self as having been awarded it.
It no more criminalized wearing decorations onstage or to a Halloween party than laws against falsely representing oneself as a medical doctor make Hugh Laurie a criminal every time he steps on to the set of "House".
Post a Comment