# Law Against Faking Receipt of Military Medals is Unconstitutional



## ToughOmbre (Aug 18, 2010)

*Anyone else got a problem with this?

I sure do!*

August 17, 2010

PASADENA, Calif. – A three-year-old federal law that makes it a crime to falsely claim to have received a medal from the U.S. military is unconstitutional, an appeals court panel in California ruled Tuesday.

The decision involves the case of Xavier Alvarez of Pomona, Calif., a water district board member who said at a public meeting in 2007 that he was a retired Marine who received the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military decoration.

Alvarez was indicted in 2007. He pleaded guilty on condition that he be allowed to appeal on First Amendment grounds. He was sentenced under the Stolen Valor Act to more than 400 hours of community service at a veterans hospital and fined $5,000.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with him in a 2-1 decision Tuesday, agreeing that the law was a violation of his free-speech rights. The majority said there's no evidence that such lies harm anybody, and there's no compelling reason for the government to ban such lies.

*The dissenting justice insisted that the majority refused to follow clear Supreme Court precedent that false statements of fact are not entitled to First Amendment protection.*

The act revised and toughened a law that forbids anyone to wear a military medal that wasn't earned. The measure sailed through Congress in late 2006, receiving unanimous approval in the Senate.

Dozens of people have been arrested under the law at a time when veterans coming home from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are being embraced as heroes. Many of the cases involve men who simply got caught living a lie without profiting from it. Almost all the impostors have been ordered to perform community service.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles said it was deciding whether to appeal Tuesday's ruling.

FOXNews.com - US appeals court panel: Law against faking receipt of military medals is unconstitutional

TO


----------



## diddyriddick (Aug 18, 2010)

I'm inclined to err on the side of allowing free speech wherever possible. As repugnant as Alvarez's behavior is, any unnecessary check is, in my view, more repugnant still.

Besides, Alvarez was caught in his lie and faced public humiliation. It seems to me that the shame of being a proven liar more than offsets any twisted gain he might have gotten from claiming the medals. 

Moreover, this could lead down a very slippery slope. Admiral Jeremy Boorda's career was ruined because he was supposed to have worn a medal to which he wasn't entitled; at the time, he was publicly defended by, among others, former CNO Elmo Zumwalt. Boorda committed suicide rather than face the public shame. There has been subsequent questioning of the validity of the commission's conclusions. 

The last thing that I want to see is Congress getting involved in this.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 18, 2010)

diddyriddick said:


> I'm inclined to err on the side of allowing free speech wherever possible. As repugnant as Alvarez's behavior is, any unnecessary check is, in my view, more repugnant still.
> 
> Besides, Alvarez was caught in his lie and faced public humiliation. It seems to me that the shame of being a proven liar more than offsets any twisted gain he might have gotten from claiming the medals.
> 
> ...


It's only an unnecessary check if absolutely nobody is flouting that law, ever.
How was Alvarez caught if not by an 'unnecessary check'?

I can only think of the serviceman/woman who's returned from a tour having lost a close friend, only to find some jackass prancing around bathing in someone else's glory pretending he was there. Maybe Congress ought to ask the veterans if it's causing any harm.

I thought the rights and dignities of US veterans were covered by the Stolen Valor Act anyway


----------



## BombTaxi (Aug 18, 2010)

I have to go with diddyriddick and say that us pathetic and vile as this creature is, his speech is still covered by the First Amendment, and attempts to silence him are unconstitutional. If he has profited by it, let him be tried for fraud and convicted. Otherwise, let him be, and let the community shame and shun him. A lot of people claim to be what they are not, and embellish their own mundane life stories. However, they are subject only to scorn and ridicule, not criminal prosecution. The only difference here is that this guy claimed to be a soldier, and were we not in the middle of a number of protracted wars in the Middle East, no one would be raising that much of a fuss.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 18, 2010)

Wartime or not, THIS veteran has a serious issue with someone claiming to be, or claiming to have been a soldier when they were not.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 18, 2010)

evangilder said:


> Wartime or not, THIS veteran has a serious issue with someone claiming to be, or claiming to have been a soldier when they were not.



Ditto...

This is not about free speech! In this case free speech does not apply! Lying about your service is a disrespect to all veterans and especially those that gave the ultimate sacrifice. As a veteran of Iraq myself, I can tell you this rubs me the wrong way. There is nothing unconstitutional about laws that help prevent people from dishonoring veterans and those that have served.



Colin1 said:


> I thought the rights and dignities of US veterans were covered by the Stolen Valor Act anyway



That is what they are saying is unconstitutional.


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 18, 2010)

The First Amendment guards free speech, yes....but there is a line that has to be drawn. Free, unrestricted speech would give me the right to throw on a robe and go around claiming to be a judge, or a Congressman, or a firefighter. I'm not. That is what is generally (and morally...and ethically) called a lie. Free speech is about voicing your opinion without fear of reprisals. Free speech is what the idiots who picket veterans' funerals are practicing. They're voicing their opinions, at the funeral of one who gave his/her life to protect that very freedom, ironically. LYING, however, is on the other side of the line. I do not agree with what those morons do at the funerals, and will oppose them to my dying day, but I will still say that they have the right to do it. A liar I will never support. In this guy's particular case, it cheapens the valor and bravery and, in most cases, the ultimate sacrifice of those who have actually done something to earn the Congressional Medal of Honor, and spits on those who have served in any branch, at any time. As one who served, and earned my medals and ribbons and qualifications, I will never agree with this ruling. I personally think he got off light with only 400 hours of community service.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 18, 2010)

Nicely said RA. I wonder what the punishment for impersenating a judge would be.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 19, 2010)

Very nicely said RA.


----------



## ccheese (Aug 19, 2010)

This crap actually started in Denver, CO several weeks ago. The person involved claimed to have received a
Silver Star and a Purple Heart while serving in the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps said they never heard of the
guy, and he was charged under The Stolen Valor Act. The judge in Denver said pretty much what the California
Appeals court said, it's unconstitutional. BULLSH!T !! If you didn't earn it, you don't wear it or say you were
awarded it, plain and simple.

I do not think this MOH wannabe will be humiliated..... for some it rolls off their back like water off a duck's. I hope it goes
all the way to the Supreme Court, but I am afraid of what they will say about it.

I didn't serve in Iraq or Afghannistan, but I got my fill of Korea and Vietnam. Like the other vets, here, I'm quite upset over this.

Charles


----------



## diddyriddick (Aug 19, 2010)

RabidAlien said:


> The First Amendment guards free speech, yes....but there is a line that has to be drawn. Free, unrestricted speech would give me the right to throw on a robe and go around claiming to be a judge, or a Congressman, or a firefighter. I'm not. That is what is generally (and morally...and ethically) called a lie. Free speech is about voicing your opinion without fear of reprisals. Free speech is what the idiots who picket veterans' funerals are practicing. They're voicing their opinions, at the funeral of one who gave his/her life to protect that very freedom, ironically. LYING, however, is on the other side of the line. I do not agree with what those morons do at the funerals, and will oppose them to my dying day, but I will still say that they have the right to do it. A liar I will never support. In this guy's particular case, it cheapens the valor and bravery and, in most cases, the ultimate sacrifice of those who have actually done something to earn the Congressional Medal of Honor, and spits on those who have served in any branch, at any time. As one who served, and earned my medals and ribbons and qualifications, I will never agree with this ruling. I personally think he got off light with only 400 hours of community service.



The problem is that the SCOTUS doesn't seem to agree. The only allowed exceptions to the First Amendment ever cited by the Court are:

1. Defamation-You can't publicly and falsely impugn another's reputation
2. Causing Panic-You can't cry fire in a public theater because it threatens public order
3. "Fighting Words"-Those that by their very nature cause a breakdown of the peace
4. Incitement to Crime-Should be obvious
5. Sedition-Ditto
6. Obsenity-Ditto again
7. Speech which violates the "establishment of religion" clause of the Constitution.

Wearing a uniform or medal to which one is not entitled doesn't qualify for any of these exceptions. Significantly, even more conservative courts have upheld these criteria.

Again, as troubling as the reprehensible behavior is, the alternative is more troubling. The way to stop this is to show these ugly lies for what they are. This particular ass pretended to be something he wasn't; He was caught and showed to be something he was-a liar.



First Amendment


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 19, 2010)

diddyriddick said:


> The problem is that the SCOTUS doesn't seem to agree. The only allowed exceptions to the First Amendment ever cited by the Court are:
> 
> 1. Defamation - You can't publicly and falsely impugn another's reputation


That one covers it, surely?


----------



## diddyriddick (Aug 19, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> That one covers it, surely?



Whose reputation did he directly attack?


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 19, 2010)

diddyriddick said:


> Whose reputation did he directly attack?


The reputation of military personnel who have experienced combat first hand?

The suppression of fear beforehand and the experience gained after an enagement (assuming survival) serve to forge a reputation, both as an individual soldier and as a unit, otherwise such troops would not be regarded as seasoned troops and would not be so highly regarded; to publicly emulate such courage, professionalism and reputation where no grounds for such claims exists, must surely count as an attack on that reputation.

Where does say anything in your precis about _direct_ attack anyway?


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 19, 2010)

Yet its illegal to impersonate an officer of the law? How is that any different than impersonating a member of the military?


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 19, 2010)

diddyriddick said:


> Whose reputation did he directly attack?



You could make the argument that he attacked, demeaned and cheapened every soldier, sailor, marine, airmen who was awarded medals for valor, bravery merit, etc.

When lies, in my opinoin, attack the reputatation/valor/bravery of our military, it's not the same as some politician lying about whether he was an eagle scout.

Long story short....freedom of speech is not absolute.

TO


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 19, 2010)

I also wanted to make a statement about the 9th circuit court, but then I remembered our NO POLITICS RULE! 

TO


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 19, 2010)

To me it's just outright fraud.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 20, 2010)

Claiming that you have "earned" a medal, any medal...let alone the nation's highest award, is in all actuality a theft.

It is stealing from those true recipients, the merit of award earned by sacrifice and suffering. It is stealing the honor of those to whom the honor was awarded postumously, after they made the ultimate sacrifice for thier country.

The very ideal of Freedom of Speech is a rare one, and one that should NOT be taken for granted, especially because of the very fact that there are a great number of men and women who were awarded those very medals in the line of duty preserving that very right.

There is no excuse or argument for anyone who falsely claims to be a recipient of any medal. Period.


----------



## jamierd (Aug 20, 2010)

as a veteran myself who lost friends in Iraq and bosnia i find it absolutely ing that anyone should pretend to recieve any decoration or even just pretend to have been in the military


----------



## BombTaxi (Aug 20, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> To me it's just outright fraud.



So let him be prosecuted for that (if he can be), but let's not have freedom of speech curtailed. These situations always bring a great irony; the soldiers whose deeds are being degraded fought precisely so that others would have the right to say whatever they wanted, even if that led to the degredation of the soldiers themselves (the same point as i brought up in the BC memorial thread). Ultimately, there's no point fighting to introduce freedom of speech to other countries if you are going to curtail it in your own.

Like many here, I am utterly ed by what this guy did (and I have NEVER been a member of any armed force). But I think that freedom of speech means exactly what it says on the tin, and to curtail that freedom in defense of soldier's rights would actually be a much greater show of disrespect to those who fell defending freedom of speech, than the actions of this clown and his ilk ever could be.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 20, 2010)

BombTaxi, i am in total agreement with you. i have a gut reaction to this and i have been doing a lot of thinking about it.
i don't like laws about everything. i understand that freedom of speech does not allow the shouting of fire in a theater. i want to rip the arms off flag burners but that is their right as much as i detest it.
how many people have you seen who do not stand as the flag goes by? i was at a parade and not one person sitting on the curb got up as the color guard went by. How many people do you see at games who keep their hats on during the national anthem.
lastly i have one question to all of you: What does any Military Award REALLY mean or stand for?


----------



## diddyriddick (Aug 20, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> So let him be prosecuted for that (if he can be), but let's not have freedom of speech curtailed. These situations always bring a great irony; the soldiers whose deeds are being degraded fought precisely so that others would have the right to say whatever they wanted, even if that led to the degredation of the soldiers themselves (the same point as i brought up in the BC memorial thread). Ultimately, there's no point fighting to introduce freedom of speech to other countries if you are going to curtail it in your own.
> 
> Like many here, I am utterly ed by what this guy did (and I have NEVER been a member of any armed force). But I think that freedom of speech means exactly what it says on the tin, and to curtail that freedom in defense of soldier's rights would actually be a much greater show of disrespect to those who fell defending freedom of speech, than the actions of this clown and his ilk ever could be.



An eloquent post, BT. Thank you!


----------



## parsifal (Aug 20, 2010)

For me, its a travesty on the rights of every person who earnt their medal fair and square.

In my country, many people wear the medals of their fathers and grandfathers. Thats allowed and encouraged. Ther is an accepted protocol in our country....you wear medals that are not your own on the right side, generally with a sprig of rosemary, to say "I am remembering him".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 20, 2010)

Lying about service or about a medal is not freedom of speech. I don't understand how it can be covered in that.


----------



## BombTaxi (Aug 20, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Lying about service or about a medal is not freedom of speech. I don't understand how it can be covered in that.



The principle at stake is whether speech creates an immediate risk of harm to those addressed in it. So making a death threat, or falsely shouting 'Fire!' in a theatre are not covered by the amendment. But while the speech of someone lying about military service or medals may be distressing for veterans (as it obviously is), it does not occasion any immediate risk of harm, so is not exempt from the provisions of the amendment. In coldly legal terms, it falls into the same bracket as someone saying they earn 100K a year when they reall earn 10K. It's a lie and it's rather pathetic, but it is still protected under the amendment and cannot lead to a prosecution. You can't even build a case for slander or libel as no-one else was named in the speech act who could act as a complainant. (Apologies if I just made that word up  )


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 20, 2010)

It still should be illegal in my opinion. It is no different than impersonating a police officer in my opinion.


----------



## BombTaxi (Aug 20, 2010)

You've hit the nail on the head there. Impersonating a police officer cause an immediate risk of physical harm to bystanders who may be injured as a result of false instructions from a person they believe to be a police officer. Were a person to impersonate a soldier in a context where the soldier was involved in public safety (martial law or disaster relief, for example) would no doubt be viewed the same way. But pretending to be an _ex-soldier_ poses no immediate risk of bodily harm to anyone, so is covered by the First Amendment.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 20, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> In coldly legal terms, it falls into the same bracket as someone saying they earn 100K a year when they reall earn 10K. It's a lie and it's rather pathetic, but it is still protected under the amendment and cannot lead to a prosecution.
> 
> You can't even build a case for slander or libel as no-one else was named in the speech act who could act as a complainant


Not really
over-egging your salary isn't really aimed at anyone else, whereas defrauding combat veterans generally of their achievements is

Any and every combat veteran who sacrificed something is named by these people, every time they falsely claim to have done what they have done


----------



## BombTaxi (Aug 20, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Not really
> over-egging your salary isn't really aimed at anyone else, whereas defrauding combat veterans generally of their achievements is
> 
> Any and every combat veteran who sacrificed something is named by these people, every time they falsely claim to have done what they have done



But not all combat veterans will necessarily feel that they have been harmed, so who's side does the law come down on?

Don't get me wrong, I think this guy is an a**hole, but the issue at stake is much broader than the distress caused to a specific segment of the community. This is a thin end of the wedge issue. Once the law is changed to shield one group from being offended, how long before everyone claims to be offended by something someone else says, and all freedom of speech is curtailed for fear of people being offended?


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 20, 2010)

parsifal said:


> For me, its a travesty on the rights of every person who earnt their medal fair and square.
> 
> In my country, many people wear the medals of their fathers and grandfathers. Thats allowed and encouraged. Ther is an accepted protocol in our country....you wear medals that are not your own on the right side, generally with a sprig of rosemary, to say "I am remembering him".



I can understand that. In your country, there is a definite tradition and a "right way to do it"....wear your medals on the left, as usual, and someone else's on the right, with/without the rosemary as your allergies permit. With your tradition there, nobody is claiming that the medals on the right are their own, and they are worn TO HONOR AND RESPECT those who earned the medals. That, my friend, is about the most awesome thing I can think of, and wish we had the same tradition over here in the US. What this douchewrapper is doing, is claiming medals and awards and even military service that he never earned nor served....as his own. Not "I'm wearing this in honor of my brother, who fell in battle on ___ date at ____ location." It was all for his own self-centered glory.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 20, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> So let him be prosecuted for that (if he can be), but let's not have freedom of speech curtailed. These situations always bring a great irony; the soldiers whose deeds are being degraded fought precisely so that others would have the right to say whatever they wanted, even if that led to the degredation of the soldiers themselves (the same point as i brought up in the BC memorial thread). Ultimately, there's no point fighting to introduce freedom of speech to other countries if you are going to curtail it in your own.
> 
> Like many here, I am utterly ed by what this guy did (and I have NEVER been a member of any armed force). But I think that* freedom of speech means exactly what it says on the tin*, and to curtail that freedom in defense of soldier's rights would actually be a much greater show of disrespect to those who fell defending freedom of speech, than the actions of this clown and his ilk ever could be.



I wonder if any judges ruling served in the military? 

I think they should just make a right to lie but its not fraud if he's just bragging, right?


----------



## BombTaxi (Aug 20, 2010)

B-17engineer said:


> I wonder if any judges ruling served in the military?
> 
> I think they should just make a right to lie but its not fraud if he's just bragging.



Whether judges have served in the military or not is irrelevant. Changing the law to suit the armed forces is exactly the kind of thing the US Army tries to stamp out in foreign countries, so why would you want to do it at home? Much is made of the integrity of the US Constitution, but if you change the First Amendment to protect the military more than any other segment of society, you rapidly pull the whole thing down.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 20, 2010)

Sorry I was going to address the freedom of speech limitations but someone else did and forgot to erase the 'quote'. Those were my own thoughts not in response to you, sorry for that.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 20, 2010)

So let me get this straight....

I can be a teacher

I can be a Neurologist 

I can be a cardiologist 

I can pretend to be anything I want as long as I don't cause harm to anyone,?

Its just disturbing anyone can run around with medals and say they earned them..those may not be the best examples but I hope you get the point


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 21, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> Changing the law to suit the armed forces is exactly the kind of thing the US Army tries to stamp out in foreign countries, so why would you want to do it at home? Much is made of the integrity of the US Constitution, but if you change the First Amendment to protect the military more than any other segment of society, you rapidly pull the whole thing down.


Are you possibly getting the imposition of martial law in a banana republic dictatorship confused with the rights of veterans in a democracy?

In the US as anywhere, you can't pretend to be a medical doctor or a police officer. In France, you can't pretend to be an engineer. We're not talking about wholesale revisions of domestic law, just the right of combat veterans to have protected what it is that they have achieved.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 21, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Are you possibly getting the imposition of martial law in a banana republic dictatorship confused with the rights of veterans in a democracy?
> 
> In the US as anywhere, you can't pretend to be a medical doctor or a police officer. In France, you can't pretend to be an engineer. We're not talking about wholesale revisions of domestic law, just the right of combat veterans to have protected what it is that they have achieved.



And you hit the nail on the head again.

Sorry but this is not about taking someones freedom of speech away. You are not saying anything by pretending to be a combat veteran. What you are doing is taking the honor away from them. That is why it is illegal. I personally would rip the medals off of this guys chest. It makes me want to vomit.


----------



## Glider (Aug 21, 2010)

If I had the money I thnk that I would take some photo's of the guy and have them posted on bill boards across the state. In particular where he lives and works.


However no doubt that would be an infringement of his rights somewhere along the road and of course I don't have the money.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 22, 2010)

Bombtaxi, keep it up you are 110% corrrect
Guys, I am as ed and angry at this a-wipe as you but we have a much larger issue here. one of the things we fought for is the rights of the individual. all individuals not just the ones we like or agree with. in fact is is the ones we disagree with that we have to be the most careful with. it's very easy to start on that slippery slope. one easy step leads to another after another after another. pretty soon we have all the "undesirables" behind barbed wire.
have you ever known anyone to promulgate a law to stop himself from doing something. notice that it is always the "other guy" who needs to be stopped


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 22, 2010)

Yes, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. You can take "free speech" and push it to the point where nobody is allowed to say anything in defense of themselves or their beliefs, because it 'may' offend someone else or their beliefs. At that point, all you have is anarchy. There has to be a moral line drawn in the sand somewhere, and we elect our governing officials in the trust that they will draw that line for the best of the country as a whole. Yes....some will end up on the other side of that line, and probably get their feelings hurt in the process. Guess what, that's life. Your feelings will get hurt. But to say that one man is allowed to live a lie, and we will accept that lie and do nothing about it because he has the right, at best moves that line in the sand several feet closer to anarchy. At worst, it obliterates the line completely. Our kids are bombarded constantly by commercials, cartoons, TV shows, 'reality' shows, movies, music, and a thousand other examples that tell them that the occasional little white lie is okay, because in the end we feel better about ourselves and the hero will always get the smoking hot chick before the credits start rolling. No matter what faith you practice (or don't, that's your choice), there is still that line of common decency and morals, and this dude's crossed it. Flagrantly and blatantly. The idiots at Westboro (?) Baptist who protest anything and everything are repugnant, but they, at least, are forthright with what they believe and don't pretend to be anything other than misguided. That kind of free speech I will support. And puke. But support nonetheless. This guy I have no sympathy for, and protest the overturning of his conviction. 

Heh. Please don't read that as anything but a philosophical discussion over a cup o' joe, I'm not tryin to belittle or bombass-t (just had to throw that word in there, with its clever spelling....sometimes I amaze even myself! har), just voicing my opinion. I agree with Mike and BT, but still think there needs to be a line drawn somewhere.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 22, 2010)

Rabid, yes and yes again as long as it is a MORAL line. you are free to draw any moral lines you wish. it is when you(plural) decide that your moral line needs to be a LEGAL line 'cause those bad folks over there need to be stopped that we loose what we have worked so hard for in thei country: Freedom. Look at the mid-east where all those moral ayatollahs had the force of law behind them


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 22, 2010)

Yep. That's where the balance of powers comes into play. The government has to work to protect the people, but the people have to take a stand when the government tries something harmful or oppressive. We need to learn from the mistakes of other countries, before they happen here too...but I fear that where individuals may be able to, the masses will not. But....we gotta try. If we stop taking a stand because its unpopular or not easy to do, then we've all lost. Maybe not this year, or in ten years, but successive generations will get worse and worse. I don't want my daughter growing up in that.


----------



## BombTaxi (Aug 23, 2010)

Mike and RA, you've just made the point much better than I have. Censoring free speech to prevent offense is dictatorship by another name. People say things that offend me on a more or less daily basis. I very probably do the smae to them. But we have to tackle the issue on two fronts. 99 times out of 100, it's pure ignorance and/or fear that drives offensive speech, and better education is the only way to tackle it. The other time, you just have to accept that the person in question (like this guy we're talking about) is a moron and move on. You can't legislate these people out of existence, and despite all the rights and freedoms we enjoy, _none of us have the right to not be offended_. When someone hurts you, you educate or retaliate - but you have to do it yourself, not depend on the govt to do it for you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2010)

My question is how is this free speech?


----------



## mikewint (Aug 23, 2010)

Eagle, don't get to literal with the word speech, perhaps expression is a better word. you are free to express yourself in any way shape or form as long as your expression does not do PHYSICAL harm to another. you can claim to be a brain surgeon all you want until you start working on people. you can burn the flag but not your neighbors
i think we all need to be offended from time to time. skinheads offend the he** out of me but they have a right to state their views. moral christians folk hung blacks from lamp posts 'cause they looked at a white woman. morals and laws need far separation


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 23, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> People say things that offend me on a more or less daily basis. I very probably do the same to them.
> *It's not the same, what you and your colleagues do to one another is inadvertent, what Alvarez does is premeditated*
> 
> You can't legislate these people out of existence,
> ...


and if the same doctors and police officers had been left to it by the government, where do you think they would be right now? Where do you think we would be - I think this guy who's about to operate on me is a doctor but I'm just not sure...

It says something about how we regard each other if we think it's OK to trample everything an individual has achieved under the feet of the wannabees who in the vast majority of cases I would imagine, lack the traits to be the genuine article, simply because it 'doesn't hurt anybody'; someone more cynical might say 'doesn't hurt in a way that can be measured in fiscal loss'


----------



## jamierd (Aug 23, 2010)

according to the US Census bureau there are presently 24.5 million veterans in the us add the 1.5million serving members and you have a very large group indeed who could all be offended by the actions of theses numbskulls .the way i see it the majority has to be protected i doubt very much if you could scrape up 100000 people who would want to pretend to be veterans or medal holders in the entire US.so surely the righta and priveleges of the 26million must come before the rights of the pathetic wannabes who didnt have the bottle to commit in the first place


----------



## mikewint (Aug 23, 2010)

Colin1- alverez has done nothing to me. i am the same as i was before and will be the same after. his flapping mouth takes nothing from me. saying your a doc is one thing operating on someone is physical and considering some of these malpractice suits the pretend guy might not be all that bad.
Jamierd - you have it backwards. the majority does not need defending it is the minority that has to be protected from the majority. furthermore the rights and privileges of one group never overshadow or cancel the rights of another group.
the 26 million are serving precisely so that a moron like alveraz can declare to the world that he is a fool
when the majority moves to silence in minority we have barbed wire and ovens


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2010)

mikewint said:


> Eagle, don't get to literal with the word speech, perhaps expression is a better word. you are free to express yourself in any way shape or form as long as your expression does not do PHYSICAL harm to another. you can claim to be a brain surgeon all you want until you start working on people. you can burn the flag but not your neighbors



This we will never agree on, when it comes to assholes stealing the honor of our combat veterans.


----------



## diddyriddick (Aug 23, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> This we will never agree on....



Agreed, Eagle. We may simply have to agree to disagree.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2010)

diddyriddick said:


> Agreed, Eagle. We may simply have to agree to disagree.



Such is life. I would still buy you a beer though.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 23, 2010)

guys we totally agree that alveraz is a class A butt-wipe and a moron to boot. but such imbeciles diminish me not at all. i am secure in what i have done and been. remember when i returned it was the reverse. there was no honor in being a vet, even from other vets. we were drug-crazed babykillers. i could not allow their reality to become mine


----------



## diddyriddick (Aug 23, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Such is life. I would still buy you a beer though.



Right back atcha!


----------



## diddyriddick (Aug 23, 2010)

mikewint said:


> guys we totally agree that alveraz is a class A butt-wipe and a moron to boot. but such imbeciles diminish me not at all. i am secure in what i have done and been. remember when i returned it was the reverse. there was no honor in being a vet, even from other vets. we were drug-crazed babykillers. i could not allow their reality to become mine



There was always honor in being a vet, Mike. Even if some of your countrymen didn't recognize it.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 23, 2010)

diddy, yes agreed but when everyone turns on you and you loose everything it is very difficult to feel that honor. remember even other vets turned on us. i never expected cheering crowds or ticker tape just the recognition that i had done my best in a very difficult situation. only my wife knew what i had done and been. my children were not told to protect them.
as i said before, it has taken me many years to come to terms with all of this


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 23, 2010)

mikewint said:


> Colin - alverez has done nothing to me. i am the same as i was before and will be the same after. his flapping mouth takes nothing from me


Mike
me neither, I feel nothing for him save a curious blend of amusement and pity
Returning to our doctors and police officers, I doubt the revelation of a phoney in their ranks rocks their day either, unless he/she was a member of the same practice or police precinct.

It still doesn't excuse the behaviour of Alvarez and co. If it's an offence to wear the uniform, awards and decorations of US servicemen and women over there, then they've got that right.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 23, 2010)

colin1, i see from your sign in that you are in the UK. Do you have laws about people wearing military medals they are not intitled to?
i am not a lawyer but i believe free speech protects pretenders unless that pretense poses physical harm to another. saying you are a doctor is one thing examining patients is another.
i feel the same way as all of you feel about this cretin but i do not want to put a foot on that slippery slope. freedom is double edged. if you grant freedom then you have to actually allow freedom. and not just your version of what you think is correct. soon whatever isn't forbidden is manditory


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 24, 2010)

mikewint said:


> colin, i see from your sign in that you are in the UK. Do you have laws about people wearing military medals they are not intitled to?


Mike
yes, we do. I'm not 100% clear on how they work but then, I've never really had any desire to wear something that I didn't earn. As a matter of fact, I've never worn the ones that I did earn.


----------



## BombTaxi (Aug 24, 2010)

Colin, that was a bit of a hatchet job on quoting me and ignores several things I have already said.

Firstly, I have stated at length and repeatedly, that the reason it is a crime to impersonate a police officer or a doctor is that _SUCH IMPERSONATION LEADS TO A REAL AND IMMEDIATE RISK OF PHYSICAL INJURY TO OTHERS_. While our lying politico was upsetting a few people, he posed absolutely NO physical risk to anyone. This is the point that freedom of speech revolves around - you lose your protection ONLY at the point that you expressive activity becomes an immediate physical danger to others. 

My comment on 'legislating people out of existence' has been gloriously ripped out of it's context. My point, as I'm sure you know, is that even if you remove people's rights in the way the Stolen Valor Act does, you will still get sad losers falsely claiming military honours. After all, the SVA didn't deter this clown, did it? What is the point of removing a chunk of people's right's if the action has no deterrent value? It's knee-jerk politics of the very lowest kind.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 24, 2010)

Ok so if he can lie about that why do people get fined and arrested for false advertisement? After all by peoples definition here thats freedom of speech.


----------



## BombTaxi (Aug 24, 2010)

It isn't the same thing at all - in cases of false advertisement, an individual has paid a business for a service or product which is not as advertised - basically, they've been conned. Fraudulent behaviour is not covered by freedom of speech either. But again, our lying hack had not defrauded anyone - even if someone had donated to his campaign on the grounds that he was supposedly an ex-Marine, I do not believe they would have had any legal recourse to get the money back, as they were not 'buying' his claim to be a Marine - they were simply giving money voluntarily to a candidate whose campaign they supported.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 24, 2010)

B-17, false advertising is not a felony hence people are not arrested for it. this then becomes a civil matter involving fines but not jail time. most companies are smart enough and there are enough loop-holes in the law to allow for "deceptive" advertising to be quite common.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 24, 2010)

Hey Harrison, ask your dad what he would do if he caught someone impersonating a police officer.

Nevermind. I see that this has already been covered. This topic is so simple in its solution that it is not even worth debating. Carry on.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 24, 2010)

matt308, a totally different matter since this falls into the category of yelling fire in a crowded theater.
you must not make a law to prevent someone form doing something you don't like or find offensive.
everyone here does not like and finds alverez offensive but he has a right to make such statements. why were so many so gullible as to accept him at face value. do you really expect a politician to tell the whole truth. caveat emptor!


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 24, 2010)

When I asked him about this he said its just like impersonating a police officer, you don't necessarily are physically harming anyone, its just against the law. Also he'd be pretty pissed at the individual who does it. Only insecure cowards would do such things...

I don't even understand how its consider freedom of speech to be honest. Mike, I was using that example as if we were in a perfect world......and people didn't use all the loops holes.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 24, 2010)

mikewint said:


> matt308, a totally different matter since this falls into the category of yelling fire in a crowded theater.
> *are we sure it falls into this category, or is that just where we've conveniently parked it?*
> 
> you must not make a law to prevent someone form doing something you don't like or find offensive
> ...


*that doesn't necessarily make people gullible, only trusting. Most otherwise intelligent and reasonably streetwise people might only wonder, after the fact, why anybody would choose to lie about such a thing in the first place*


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 24, 2010)

mikewint said:


> B-17, false advertising is not a felony hence people are not arrested for it. this then becomes a civil matter involving fines but not jail time. most companies are smart enough and there are enough loop-holes in the law to allow for "deceptive" advertising to be quite common.



It doesn't matter if its a felony or misdemeanor my point is its against the law. And if all these loopholes werent there, its lying. So they can't do it but when your impersonating someone its alright to lie?


----------



## BombTaxi (Aug 24, 2010)

B-17engineer said:


> It doesn't matter if its a felony or misdemeanor my point is its against the law. And if all these loopholes werent there, its lying. So they can't do it but when your impersonating someone its alright to lie?



Basically, yes. There is no law against lying, unless you do so under oath in a court of law. The First Amendment covers all speech, regardless of it's accuracy and veracity, unless the speech in question is specifically and explicitly exempt from the terms of the Amendment. Exemptions are very few and generally involve circumstances where a speech act creates an immediate danger to persons and/or property. Claiming to have served when you have not done so does not fulfill these criteria, and therefore is protected under the Amendment.

QED, the Stolen Valor Act compromises free expression and as such is unconstitutional, and this guy, while a complete moron, has not made an illegal statement.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 24, 2010)

Alright you say it has to be under oath....

Lying to the police, you don;t have to be under oath and no one has to be immediately in danger... but it still against the law. 

Police read you your Miranda your not under oath...


----------



## mikewint (Aug 24, 2010)

Colin B-17, police officers have a tremendous amount of power and influence. The vast majority of people unquestioningly obey them. Thus a person impersonating a police officer has the potential to do a tremendous amount of harm. Several months ago a man, pretending to be a police officer, telephoned a Burger King and literally had employees strip searching, just by giving verbal orders over a phone. Think of stopping people on a highway or taking little children into a car. The same principle holds for doctors thus the potential for physical harm (fire in a theater) cancels freedom of expression.
Saying that you were a marine or that you have an MOH carries no such threat of immanent harm and as reprehensible as it my be, is free speech.
Gullible and/or trusting are pretty much the same coin. I’m old and have seen way too much but do you actually trust any politician? They all promise the moon, stars, and a chicken in every pot until they get elected.
Loop-holes and/or deceptive advertising, B-17 you are a young man but to you actually believe all those glossy ads? Yes, the FDA does monitor claims but no where near the degree to which most people think. The word “Natural” has no meaning whatever. “Low fat/sodium” or “Reduced” only mean below what their normal product has, so if their regular soup has 4000 mg sodium their Low sodium can have 3900mg.
Again, it is precisely the offensive, that have to be protected. What is or is not offensive is subject to definition. The Jews were offensive in Germany, then the Trade-unionists, etc. It is a very slippery slope we embark upon until the day you are defined as being offensive.


----------



## BombTaxi (Aug 24, 2010)

B-17engineer said:


> Alright you say it has to be under oath....
> 
> Lying to the police, you don;t have to be under oath and no one has to be immediately in danger... but it still against the law.
> 
> Police read you your Miranda your not under oath...



Okay, bad wording - if you lie in the course of a criminal investigation, you can be prosecuted under a clutch of laws. Point is, like Mike said, impersonating a cop is in an entirely different league to claiming you used to be a Marine, due to public safety issues. And the SVA is still unconstitutional, and therefore likely to be struck down.


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 24, 2010)

Lying about being a Marine DOES carry inherent safety risks. Just let any Marines hear you falsely claiming to have been a Marine (much less having earned the CMH during your fake service)....the person falsely claiming thus is now in imminent danger of having the errors of their ways beat into them.


----------



## BombTaxi (Aug 24, 2010)

RabidAlien said:


> Lying about being a Marine DOES carry inherent safety risks. Just let any Marines hear you falsely claiming to have been a Marine (much less having earned the CMH during your fake service)....the person falsely claiming thus is now in imminent danger of having the errors of their ways beat into them.



100% agreed RA... but I bet that would never get to court


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 24, 2010)

473 Marines (active and retired) standing around, yet not one single witness, darn it!


----------



## mikewint (Aug 24, 2010)

At least he was not claiming to be in the #1 service, the Army of course!
the grunts come in after SF has cleared the way for them


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 24, 2010)

Of course. I just assumed everyone knew that.

'Course....they hitched a ride on subs to get there....


----------



## mikewint (Aug 25, 2010)

RA, my best friend was a Lt. Commander and weapons officer on the Patrick Henry


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 25, 2010)

Sweet!

I was an EM2 (electrician's Mate 2nd Class) on several fast-attacks outta Pearl.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 25, 2010)

Richard Avila, went in the navy two years before i got drafted in the summer of '63. he was on diesel subs first then nuclear after the navy sent him to u of iowa to finish his BS so i'm guessing some time in late '60s early '70s he would have been at pearl on the patrick henry. big navy i know but perhaps depending on your time in


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 26, 2010)

I was in '92-'98. Probably not very likely we would've run into each other.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 26, 2010)

RA, no he put in his 20 and retired in the early '90 or late '80. so he's drawing the big govt check collecting corvettes in vegas. little jerk used to send me pics of himself at xmas time on the beach at the Royal Hawaii hotel


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 27, 2010)

I did that to some of my friends, too! (the Christmas-beach thing)


----------



## mikewint (Aug 27, 2010)

RA, Yea, though the humor was lost on me while i crawled through the mud, muck, bugs, thorns, VC, NVA, and ate C K rats from WWII plus as an added treat iodine laced water if i was lucky. -20 degrees in chicago was almost a treat but still no humor.
as i recall he started out in electronics, radar as i recall then went to subs. yea, we all laughed at him and told him what a moron he was for joining the navy. live and learn


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 27, 2010)

Poking holes in the ocean, smelling the same farts and BO for weeks on end wasn't any picnic either.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 28, 2010)

hmmm, clean bunk, clean clothes, sheets, real food, water, and showers. sounds like a slice of heaven.
I remember rick saying something about one crew member being named "laundry Queen"


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 28, 2010)

LOL Yeah....he ever mention the 40-hour workdays, followed by 4 hours rack-time? Hot-bunking? All food deep-fried? Endless series of drills? Very little fresh air? 

Yeah, usually the most junior unqualified enlisted guy is the "laundry queen", responsible for doing the officers' laundry. Because grown men, trained to lead other men, can't figure out how to run a washer....


----------



## mikewint (Aug 28, 2010)

in the army it was RHIP. we did have hooch girls when at base camp who did all the chores so that was a plus and i did have my own bunk. i've heard about the hot bunking kinda creepy depending on the previous sleepers habits.
depending where we were we could easily be up 40hrs. as medic i carried lots of speed and morphine. ambushes were set at night and you did not dare sleep and the days were even hotter and more humid. then there were the rats, never thought much about rats in the jungle, big as cats. used to have to wrap up in your poncho with nothig exposed or you'd wake up with a rat chewing on it, nose, fingers, ears. and snakes. and bugs
fun times


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 29, 2010)

Heh. Fun times all around, whatever the branch! 

Dang. Kinda looks like we've hijacked this thread just a little bit.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 29, 2010)

i think everyone has had their say about alveraz and his fake MOH. take care RA, we'll meet on another thread.
did you put a torpedo on your shoulder and wake inland until someone asked you what that was on your shoulder?


----------



## Freebird (Aug 30, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> It isn't the same thing at all - in cases of false advertisement, an individual has paid a business for a service or product which is not as advertised - basically, they've been conned. Fraudulent behaviour is not covered by freedom of speech either. But again, *our lying hack had not defrauded anyone* - even if someone had donated to his campaign on the grounds that he was supposedly an ex-Marine, I do not believe they would have had any legal recourse to get the money back, as they were not 'buying' his claim to be a Marine - they were simply giving money voluntarily to a candidate whose campaign they supported.



No, but there are various statutes for fraud identity theft that may apply.
He has defrauded people if they voted for him on the basis of his qualifications, which were untrue.

He could be considered to have_ wrongly benefitted_ from the fraud, by obtaining elected office.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2011)

Well with the recent events that took place in Pakistan with the SEALs it seems that a lot of people are coming out the woodworks again to claim and be what they are not. Read this interesting article in the Stars and Stripes today.

SEAL sleuths expose those who've faked service - News - Stripes


----------



## RabidAlien (May 12, 2011)

Heh...."debunking" these guys should involve a long flight of stairs, a little bit of slippery substance, and an old baseball bat studded with rusty nails. Dark alley optional.  to Mr. Waterman for his service, and for his efforts (and his team's!) in rooting out the imposters.


----------



## Njaco (May 12, 2011)

I just can't believe these [email protected]!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 14, 2011)

Yes it makes me rather sick as well. I guess you will always have fools who do this though.


----------



## ccheese (May 14, 2011)

The local TV and newspapers are running items about guys in local bars saying they're seals since the bin ladin thing. 
Guess they are trying to impress someone.

Charles


----------



## bobbysocks (May 15, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well with the recent events that took place in Pakistan with the SEALs it seems that a lot of people are coming out the woodworks again to claim and be what they are not. Read this interesting article in the Stars and Stripes today.


 
i probably already told this but.... when i was selling firearms in the 80s, i mostly dealt with military style weapons. it was a nitch that i liked but it also drew in all the crackpots too. i met more proclaimed special forces viet nam vets than you could shake a stick at. of course i know they were full of it but let them rant on. the best one was a guy telling me how he jumped into cambodia or laos....now mind you i am filling out his paperwork for the purchase of a pistol. when i get to his age it comes out he was 2 years younger than me. i was too young for nam so that would've put him jumping out of a plane at the ripe old age of 10 or 11. when people are too free to spin the yarn of their military exploits....its most likely a lie.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 15, 2011)

ccheese said:


> The local TV and newspapers are running items about guys in local bars saying they're seals since the bin ladin thing.
> Guess they are trying to impress someone.
> 
> Charles


Probably are, Charles...seen it used plenty of times over the years for free drinks and/or a peice of tail at the local watering hole.


----------

