Military employees are a protected class, subby. They risk their life fighting the enemy over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Freedom isn't free.

I think they're going to have a tough time getting this one through, particularly since there wasn't any fraud (or at least, no fraud for monetary gain) in this particular case. The guy was just one of these:

I always use the "three strikes you're out" rule from baseball.

/Seems applicable.

His right to be a shameless liar will be upheld.

No, I said I had the Medal of On Her.

As long as I can tell women about my Bronze swimming certificate and Silver swimming certificate I'll still be alone.

An ex-professional hockey player, engineer, AND he saved the American ambassador to Iran?

Alvarez, you'd say anything to be laid.

DarnoKonrad: His right to be a shameless liar will be upheld.

I fully support this right, so long as it comes with the responsibility of getting his ass royally kicked.

I won the Medal of Honor... LAN party.

free speech my ass....

fine...you want to act like you've earned 'em? anyone that gets caught parading around wearing medals they didn't earn or uniforms of a service they aren't a part of has to sign up for service for a year. that'll keep 'em in line. All these fake heros couldn't serve their country regardless, they just want to accolades.

I'll be fine as long as the Just The Tip, Honestly Act of 2012 fails to pass.

Kif, show them the medal I won!

Can you still say you're a marine biologist?

America is a lie.

I guess it will depend on how corporate america feels about it. Since it doesn't really affect Glaxo Smith Kline or BOA my guess is it will probably fly. God help him if it cuts into profits.

Hold on, how on earth can you actually, with a straight face, make the argument against as a constitutional issue?

It's a short case.

Lying with intent to defraud is illegal. Fraud is receiving benefits from illegal behavior, whether the benefits are tangible or intangible. Lying about medals is done to receive the benefits the medal recipients are perceived to receive. Lying about medals is illegal fraud.

Game over.

Leave your comments about whether medals winners DESERVE anything at the door.

Kind of a weird case, since anyone with real loyalty to the country's constitution pretty much falls on the side of the lying asshole. And the fact that the USSC took the case at all pretty much tells you which way they're going to rule.

Can I say I'm a time traveler from the late 1970's working on getting away from Disco?

It's true, BTW.

Step 1: Create medals.mil.us.gov or whatever the proper domain is.
Step 2: Have a search field there to enter a name.
Step 3: Site displays results of medals and discharge status.
Step 4: Avoid passing any form of law that infringes on free speech.

/served 8 years
//doesn't really give a shiat if anyone lies about having a medal

Farkettes, I have a Good Conduct Medal*, and an Army Achievement Medal, and no matter how this case turns out, I'm not in danger of being prosecuted for saying that.

*Even though I had at least 3 Article 15s.

...and how does it relate to our discussion of irony?

Mr Guy: Hold on, how on earth can you actually, with a straight face, make the argument against as a constitutional issue?

It's a short case.

Lying with intent to defraud is illegal. Fraud is receiving benefits from illegal behavior, whether the benefits are tangible or intangible. Lying about medals is done to receive the benefits the medal recipients are perceived to receive. Lying about medals is illegal fraud.

Game over.

Leave your comments about whether medals winners DESERVE anything at the door.

I thought we use the term "identity theft" instead of "fraud".

Jim_Callahan: Kind of a weird case, since anyone with real loyalty to the country's constitution pretty much falls on the side of the lying asshole. And the fact that the USSC took the case at all pretty much tells you which way they're going to rule.

The constitution doesn't support any form of speech that follows the pattern:

Because of [ FRAUDULENT CLAIM ] you should [BEHAVIOR THAT BENEFITS ME] .

AverageAmericanGuy: Military employees are a protected class, subby. They risk their life fighting the enemy over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Freedom isn't free.

Nope, only veterans are a protected class.

Link (new window)

While they are active duty they are subject to military laws.

Constitution vs Sucking Military Ego Cawk?

Conservative asplode.

Mr Guy: Lying about medals is illegal fraud.

So you meet a girl in a bar that you want to fark. You chat with her and find out she likes Radiohead. You, yourself, hate Radiohead, but in order to sleep with her you claim you like the band. Is that fraud? Or what if she is into NASCAR, and you claim you totally used to be a racecar driver? Should you go to jail?

It's like that case where the Israeli woman claimed a Palestinian man raped her because when they had consensual sex she was under the belief that he was Jewish.

this bettered be struck down or i'll throw my purple star over the white house fence!

ha-ha-guy: Step 1: Create medals.mil.us.gov or whatever the proper domain is.
Step 2: Have a search field there to enter a name.
Step 3: Site displays results of medals and discharge status.
Step 4: Avoid passing any form of law that infringes on free speech.

/served 8 years
//doesn't really give a shiat if anyone lies about having a medal

You can already do that for the CMOH: Official Congressional Medal of Honor Society recipient archive. Every single person, living or dead, who was awarded that medal is in there.

Pocket Ninja: I was talking to some of my buddies in the marine core

As a former navel officer, I agree.

Mr Guy: The constitution doesn't support any form of speech that follows the pattern:

Because of [ FRAUDULENT CLAIM ] you should [BEHAVIOR THAT BENEFITS ME] .

Uh huh. And yet News Corp makes *billions* every year. Their right, to quite literally sell lies, was upheld by the courts.

I won the Congressional Medal of Honor.

/ok now let's see what happens

Mr Guy: Lying with intent to defraud is illegal. Fraud is receiving benefits from illegal behavior, whether the benefits are tangible or intangible. Lying about medals is done to receive the benefits the medal recipients are perceived to receive. Lying about medals is illegal fraud.

So, because it's already covered by fraud statutes, we don't need a separate law about it, right?

Those of us who have served tend not to brag. I bet more than half the people I know have no idea that I was at the battle of Mylae or that I received decorations for it.

dittybopper: ha-ha-guy: Step 1: Create medals.mil.us.gov or whatever the proper domain is.
Step 2: Have a search field there to enter a name.
Step 3: Site displays results of medals and discharge status.
Step 4: Avoid passing any form of law that infringes on free speech.

/served 8 years
//doesn't really give a shiat if anyone lies about having a medal

You can already do that for the CMOH: Official Congressional Medal of Honor Society recipient archive. Every single person, living or dead, who was awarded that medal is in there.

Interesting. I guess I can now definitively prove the guy who panhandles at the strip mall is full of shiat on that claim. Although I'd pretty much already figured that one out.

I'd like to see the military do a full audit of their records regarding medals since it is my understanding a lot of them fell through the cracks and plenty of Vietnam era people don't have the medal they earned (never got sent out or otherwise farked up by the military).

/two signs you have a bad officer: He owns a lot of Tom Clancy books or has a lot of medals

HailRobonia: Mr Guy: Lying about medals is illegal fraud.

So you meet a girl in a bar that you want to fark. You chat with her and find out she likes Radiohead. You, yourself, hate Radiohead, but in order to sleep with her you claim you like the band. Is that fraud? Or what if she is into NASCAR, and you claim you totally used to be a racecar driver? Should you go to jail?

It's like that case where the Israeli woman claimed a Palestinian man raped her because when they had consensual sex she was under the belief that he was Jewish.

No, but then, that's because we don't accept sex as having intrinsic value as a legal system, only whether or not it was consensual at the time. However, she was clearly defrauded in both cases, and it's her responsibility to demonstrate a value for what was taken in a civil case. Fraud is not rape.

This guy committed a specific type of fraud, that we've imposed a specific additional punishment for. I have no problem with stating the undefined benefits of being perceived as a national hero are equivalent to a year in jail for this particular type of fraud.

Mayor Bee: Mr Guy: Lying with intent to defraud is illegal. Fraud is receiving benefits from illegal behavior, whether the benefits are tangible or intangible. Lying about medals is done to receive the benefits the medal recipients are perceived to receive. Lying about medals is illegal fraud.

So, because it's already covered by fraud statutes, we don't need a separate law about it, right?

Probably not, but they wanted another more severe penalty. Feel free to write your congressperson. However, it's not an unconstitutional example of the system being broken.

Working as intended.

ha-ha-guy: I'd like to see the military do a full audit of their records regarding medals since it is my understanding a lot of them fell through the cracks and plenty of Vietnam era people don't have the medal they earned (

kindda hard to do. There was a major fire several years ago where they house the records. Alot are gone forever.

The American Legion contends in a friend-of-the-court brief that Congress has determined that false medal claims are a particularly dangerous kind of lie that harms the military and harms veterans by "diluting the value of the honors."

Is there some set value of these honors that can be diluted? I don't understand this argument at all.

HailRobonia: Mr Guy: Lying about medals is illegal fraud.

So you meet a girl in a bar that you want to fark. You chat with her and find out she likes Radiohead. You, yourself, hate Radiohead, but in order to sleep with her you claim you like the band. Is that fraud? Or what if she is into NASCAR, and you claim you totally used to be a racecar driver? Should you go to jail?

It's like that case where the Israeli woman claimed a Palestinian man raped her because when they had consensual sex she was under the belief that he was Jewish.

Your analogy is flawed, because no women like military guys. Unless they are fat, missing teeth, a stripper pretendinh she loves you before yoy deploy, hookers who find out your on leave, or otherwise a social basketcase.

/okay, a few small town naive girls, usually not found in a bar though
//oh how could i forget: married women

the premise of the Stolen Valor Act is that you dilute the significance of military honors when you lie about receiving one. this might be true, though it's hard to provide any facts to support it, other than intuition.

but even if it is true, this hardly rises to the level of anything that the Court sees as low value (i.e. less-protected) speech. This is not defamation, or incitement, or "fighting words". The only thing it might be is a kind of fraud, but then you need to show damages, and loss of honor by veterans is too nebulous to prove. The fact that they are angry is not evidence that they have been harmed.

This guy is a dick, but that doesn't make him a criminal. The Court should overturn.

HotWingConspiracy: I don't understand this argument at all.

military worship

CheatCommando: Pocket Ninja: I was talking to some of my buddies in the marine core

As a former navel officer, I agree.

Orange you glad you retired?

HotWingConspiracy: The American Legion contends in a friend-of-the-court brief that Congress has determined that false medal claims are a particularly dangerous kind of lie that harms the military and harms veterans by "diluting the value of the honors."

Is there some set value of these honors that can be diluted? I don't understand this argument at all.

The premise is that we, as a society, treat people better who served and earned military honors. Congress wishes to encourage this, and so to protect the practice of honor veterans, imposes additional penalties on a specific type of fraudulent claim. Congress believes that allowing people to claim they have been honored when they are not could encourage people to, for example, claim to have the honor in order to encourage people to vote for them for public office.

Like this guy did.

HotWingConspiracy: The American Legion contends in a friend-of-the-court brief that Congress has determined that false medal claims are a particularly dangerous kind of lie that harms the military and harms veterans by "diluting the value of the honors."

Is there some set value of these honors that can be diluted? I don't understand this argument at all.

Well, diluted earnings per share is net income minus preferred stock dividends divided by the weighted average of common stock shares outstanding over the past year; this is adjusted for dilutive shares. So perhaps a similar formula can be derived for this.

What I take issue with is the name "Stolen Valor Act." Nothing is stolen. If someone telling stories can "steal" your "valor," you need to man up and grow a pair.

FTFA: The dissent contended that factually false speech should be protected by the First Amendment only to the extent necessary to protect speech "that matters."

Yeah, that will clarify things a whole lot. Everyone will agree on the definition of "speech that matters".

Not a single soldier or civilian would ever have died in war if politicians could do their jobs.
Make the whole Medal argument invalid.
Instead of concern for a few psycho blowhards in bars how about getting revolty on the dooshbags that make the war machine wheels go around. The a-holes of WashDC. Make -them- speak the truth.

Whatever happened to a good public shaming and a punch to mouth that no one saw? I'd imagine that if the guy in suit had gotten socked in the teeth every time he spoke about his "actions" than he wouldn't be so eager to keep doing it. Plus, unless he takes money for speaking is not fraud.