SCOTUS sez wearing fake military medals not a crime

[Fpqxz]

With all the commotion over the healthcare law, one story has (mostly) slipped through the cracks:  The Supreme Court of the United States has struck down the Stolen Valor Act, which made it a federal misdemeanor to falsely represent oneself as having received any U.S. military decoration or medal, on First Amendment grounds.

Article from JURIST

United States v. Alvarez slip opinion (PDF, 49 pages)

I've got to be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about this.   

[Her3tiK]

I used to wear real ones because I needed them for a school project and they were effing expensive at the surplus store. Granted, I never really learned the "proper" way to wear them (orientation, location on clothes, etc.), which probably made it clear that I didn't really know what they were for. My vet relatives understood that I didn't mean any disrespect by it, and I only ever had one problem with a hothead marine who seemed to think the sole reason for my existence was to piss him off.

I don't see what the big deal is.

[TigerHunter]

Stupid law anyway.

[Auri-El]

I think falsely claiming to have earned medals is extremely disrespectful to those who actually have earned them. (Wearing them to class for an assignment doesn't count, imo, because the student is not claiming to have earned them and claiming the benefits that go along with earning them.)

[Fpqxz]

I think the narrow tailoring requirement is what sank this law.  It was too broadly drawn.  If it only applied to this conduct in a specific set of circumstances, it might have been upheld.

[shykid]

Pretending you're a war hero and a veteran is a shitty as hell thing to do and profoundly disrespectful to all those who legitimately shed blood and sacrificed their limbs, sanity, and lives fighting for their country. Still, this law was too broad and should have been narrowed to wearing said metals specifically for the purpose of claiming or implying one earned them. Wearing them for acting, school projects, etc. are totally different than wearing them under the pretense you earned them.

[TigerHunter]

Still, this law was too broad and should have been narrowed to wearing said metals specifically for the purpose of claiming or implying one earned them.

How would that make it any less of a violation of freedom of speech?

[Auri-El]

Personally, I consider such claims to be equivalent to identity theft. Identity theft isn't protected speech, and neither should be false claims of service or honors.

[TigerHunter]

Personally, I consider such claims to be equivalent to identity theft. Identity theft isn't protected speech, and neither should be false claims of service or honors.

Except that identity theft is, y'know, theft. Wearing a metal you didn't earn harms no one.

[Fpqxz]

Still, this law was too broad and should have been narrowed to wearing said metals specifically for the purpose of claiming or implying one earned them.

How would that make it any less of a violation of freedom of speech?

If someone were to claim having won an award for the purposes of getting a job, obtaining government benefits, securing a contract, etc. it would be speech incident to fraud, which is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

The Act as it existed before today made no such specifications as to when a claim was fraudulent.  Hence, it was too broadly drawn.

[TigerHunter]

Still, this law was too broad and should have been narrowed to wearing said metals specifically for the purpose of claiming or implying one earned them.

How would that make it any less of a violation of freedom of speech?

If someone were to claim having won an award for the purposes of getting a job, obtaining government benefits, securing a contract, etc. it would be speech incident to fraud, which is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

The Act as it existed before today made no such specifications as to when a claim was fraudulent.  Hence, it was too broadly drawn.

Agreed. However, simply claiming to have won a medal for no fraudulent purpose should not be a crime.

[Fpqxz]

Still, this law was too broad and should have been narrowed to wearing said metals specifically for the purpose of claiming or implying one earned them.

How would that make it any less of a violation of freedom of speech?

If someone were to claim having won an award for the purposes of getting a job, obtaining government benefits, securing a contract, etc. it would be speech incident to fraud, which is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

The Act as it existed before today made no such specifications as to when a claim was fraudulent.  Hence, it was too broadly drawn.

Agreed. However, simply claiming to have won a medal for no fraudulent purpose should not be a crime.

Umm, yeah, that's pretty much what I (and the Court) said.

[Shane for Wax]

I wore real medals. For ROTC. And in no way did I want people to take me for an actual member of the military. Cause I wasn't. I hadn't been sworn in or signed my life to the government.

 Wearing a military uniform and pretending to be a military member, or retired, or anything else is not something I can sit idly by and watch.

That said, they need to draw up a tighter law about it. I'm sick of seeing people pretend to be military for some sort of glory.

There's a reason it was called Stolen Valor.

[Søren]

I actually agree with this decision. If a person runs around with medals going "rah rah rah I was in a war look at me look at me!". Thats not a problem, doesnt harm anyone, get over it.

If he uses it to his advantage to get a job or some other monetary benefit or acquisition, then you have a problem

[Sylvana]

Just wearing a medal and such is rude and disrespectful to those who have earned those medals. However, in a country with free speech one does not have a right not to be offended, nor a law preventing you from doing or saying something offensive.
If you are claiming to be a member of the military for some kind of benefit, that is to me fraud and a serious problem.
They should tighten up the wording of the law and try again.