Stolen Valor - a crime or free speech?

For now.

The same society that says "Support our troops!" and "Thanks, U.S. servicemen and women!" when our armed forces do something to make us feel all warm and fuzzy, should also condemn anyone who impersonates one of the people we respect so much.

 

The Court doesn't operate that way, particularly with Sandy and J.P. gone. Nor should it. If SportsJournalists.com existed in the '30s, '40s, and '50s, it would have been the speech rights of dangerous leftist organizations that people here were up in arms about.

 

People falsely claiming to be former Navy SEALs on the rise since since the bin Laden raid:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/05/12/after-bin-laden-raid-false-navy-seal-claims-on-the-rise/

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/navy-seals-imposters-coming-woodwork-seal/story?id=13564587

 

I roll my eyes when Congress passes laws like this. Grandstanding, pure and simple. And people buy it. It's like Hillary Clinton voting for a flag-burning ban when you know she doesn't believe in it.

 

And society should condemn those who impersonate medal winners. Should they punished criminally based on speech alone? No. As journalists, we should protect speech, no matter how horrible it can be.

 

John Kerry staunchly opposes this law.

 

I am a veteran. I was awarded seven medals. I did something to earn every single one of them, even the bullshit National Defense medal that you got for having a pulse on active duty.

I don't oppose the law. I do feel it's not necessary. The last thing we need is to spend tax dollars prosecuting dickweeds. There should be a provision where if anyone is caught pretending to be a war hero, their name and address should be listed as a public notice where they can have their asses kicked.

 

This law would be struck down 8-1 or, more likely, 9-0 at the Supreme Court. Perhaps only the Tenth Circuit would even create a circuit split on the issue. Falsely claiming to have earned medals or honors in order to get a loan, a government job, etc. is already covered under fraud statutes.

Anyone who falsely claims to have served deserves the scorn of all of us. However, what is wrong is not always what is punishable as a crime. And this is one of the places where society's mores must fill the rightful gap in the government's laws.

 

Alito?

 

That's whom I envisioned. He could differentiate this from <i>Snyder</i> by arguing that this is a content-based restricton, whereas the Maryland court (in his view) applied a universal ban on protesting funerals by awarding monetary damages. Obviously, the distinction is difficult to draw because of the unusual posture of <i>Snyder</i>, but I could see a difference. (Of course, he was also the lone dissent in the animal-cruelty video case.)

 

That's why I thought him, because of the animal cruelty case. He has a weird track record on First Amendment issues. There's a circuit split right now on whether states can bad alcohol advertising in college newspapers. Alito wrote for the majority in the Fourth Circuit case that said that states cannot do so, under the First Amendment.

 

Today's Times: