# Stolen Valor Law ruled unconstitutional



## Senjojutsu (Jul 17, 2010)

Once again boys and girls for today's Civics lesson, the five most feared words in the English language are:

*"A Federal Judge ruled today":*

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010...alor-Act-unconstitutional/UPI-77301279327748/

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/07/ap_fake_hero_penalty_071610/

The ACLU (a four letter word if ever there was one) argued - simply lying is not illegal.

Granted our politicians lie to us plebeians constantly, but, do we get to return the favor -  say on our tax returns?

Dear Judge Blackburn - when is fraud a fraud?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 17, 2010)

Sadly, the freedom of speach also means the freedom to lie.

The ACLU put it's views forward based upon an important principle and I, as a foreigner, don't see that they were wrong to do so.  

There are already laws in place to deal with people that profit from falsehoods (claiming to be a dpctor when you are not et al).  A well intentioned piece of legislation that opens a loophole for the expansion of government power to control what it's citizens can say is surely a law that needs revising or removing?


----------



## shihansmurf (Jul 17, 2010)

Sadly though, it remains ilegal for those of us who have actually earned those medals to put boot in tail of those who falsley claim to have.

Cowards who buy a silver star from a surplus store and make up a story about how they won it cheapen the value of the award and the recognition for those who have the courage get one in combat.

PX Rangers All the WAY!!!!

:BSmeter:


Mark


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 17, 2010)

Sheesh.


----------



## stone_dragone (Jul 17, 2010)

Perhaps this ruling will lead to other organizations to use their 1st amendment rights along with the FOIA to research and publish the names of those guilty of Stolen Valor.  

When the whack-job ****-tards at Westboro Baptist Church got too notable, a group of bikers from the American Legion organized the Patriot Guard, now active in all 50 states and has served far greater good than just countering rude protesters. Perhaps veteran's groups who work this type of thing will organize better and put some names out there.  

I'll donate time, effort, skills and money to such a cause.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 17, 2010)

Freedom of Speech is too important to restrict it in order to protect society's sense of outrage when people claim to have military history they do not, or wear medals they have not earned.

Nothing anyone can do 'cheapens' the value of the honor earned by a veteran; nothing can detract from their courage and sacrifice.

As a veteran, I have nothing but dislike and scorn for those who falsely claim veteran status or wear medals to which they are not entitled.  Even given that, I would still prefer the 1st Amendment be protected.  Restrictions to our rights that today serve our sense of outrage can later be used to restrict our own personal expression.

To quote the Blues Brothers, "I hate Illinois Nazis."  And Fred Phelps, and fake veterans too.  But they have the right, and if I honor the Constitution that my fellow veterans fought so hard for, I have to respect their right to pollute the air with their ugliness.


----------



## stone_dragone (Jul 17, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Freedom of Speech is too important to restrict it in order to protect society's sense of outrage when people claim to have military history they do not, or wear medals they have not earned.
> 
> Nothing anyone can do 'cheapens' the value of the honor earned by a veteran; nothing can detract from their courage and sacrifice.
> 
> ...



You are absolutely correct, Bill.  It is far better to combat the problem within the constitution instead of without it.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 17, 2010)

For the record: I am the very model of a modern major general.


----------



## shihansmurf (Jul 18, 2010)

I have to be carefull how I respond to this as this is one of the issues that I am by no means objective about.

I don't see how lying about who you are and fabricating a false past that includes impersonating a member of the US Military(Which remains ilegal) can possibly be construed in any other way than as fraud, which isn't protected under free speech.

Perhaps this is why I'm not a judge and am instead one of those grunts.

Fact is, though, every time one of this pieces of filth walks around with a medal that they haven't earned it degrades each of us that have earned those medals. Silver Stars, Purple Hearts, Bronze Stars, they all have meaning. Sort of like my chevrons, or unit patches. The right to wear those has to be earned, or at least it did. Now just pop over to ebay and there ya go.

Kinda like a black belt, now that I think about it.  Just a bit of cloth, right? Hell, 5 year old 2nd dans, 25 years old masters. That hasen't done anything to lessen the value of the belt, so why should anyone just being able to pick up a Medal of Honor have a negetive effect?


Mark


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 18, 2010)

Fraud is lying for gain. Simply lying about military experience or wearing unauthorized medals is not 'gain' so it is not fraud. If they do so for gain, then that is fraud, but there are already crimes for that.

And you can't steal valor or cheapen medals earned, anymore than you can degrade the value of a blackbelt. How would that ever be possible?

And as far as I know, it is not a crime for a civilian to wear a military uniform, either.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 19, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And you can't steal valor or cheapen medals earned, anymore than you can degrade the value of a blackbelt. How would that ever be possible?



Indeed. That would be like people claiming that gay marriage violates the sanctity of their marriage.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 19, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Indeed. That would be like people claiming that gay marriage violates the sanctity of their marriage.



If I buy a Rolex watch, it's a Rolex watch.  One of the fine timepieces of the world, a universally-accepted symbol of wealth, status, and quality.

But if all my neighbors envy my watch, can't afford one of their own, and buy a cheap replica on the Internet and sport it about on their wrists as if it were the real thing, how does that affect me?

I may be angry.  I mean, I paid for the real deal; they didn't.  My purchase reflects the hard work and sacrifice I had to perform at work to earn the money to buy the real thing; theirs doesn't.  And others, knowing that my neighbors' watches are fake, may suspect mine is fake as well!

But it's still a real Rolex watch.  I know it is real.  I know its value.  I know what it represents to me.  Anyone who knows watches knows the difference between a real Rolex and a fake Rolex, and is not impressed by fake Rolexes.  It has not lost value, it has not lost meaning; except perhaps to the unknowing crowd to whom it would never matter anyway.

So what we are really saying when we talk about the value of a blackbelt or a military award being degraded by fakers who wear what they are not basically entitled to wear is that we value the opinion of strangers who have low discernment abilities.

I don't strive to earn my blackbelt so that it will mean something to people I don't know.  It will mean something to me, and it will mean something to people who know what a real blackbelt represents.  What other value would I possibly care about?

The world is full of fakers.  Sad, pathetic hangers-on who want to receive some of the glory, some of the respect, some of the accolades due to heroes.  It makes me angry, sure.  But I can't think of a way to restrict them from doing it without infringing on the rights of all of us, and that I am unwilling to do.

In one way I guess I am glad.  It was not that long ago that no one wanted to put on a uniform and a chest full of fake medals; no one thought veterans and military heroes were that worthy of respect; in other words, there was no point in faking a military history; no one cared.

And I might add one last thing; for those 'some' who are outraged (and you know who you are): I'm outraged too.  I'm outraged that when I go to the Veteran's Day Parade every year, I don't see your *** there.  The last three years in Detroit, the marchers have vastly outnumbered the crowd.  Yeah, we're all heroes, unless it interferes with your TV time.  Get off your lazy half-moons and show some respect, or shut the hell up with how offended you are about clowns who pin medals to their chests that they bought off of eBay.  Sunshine patriots are even less respectable than fake medal-wearers; they're just less visible.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 19, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Fraud is lying for gain. Simply lying about military experience or wearing unauthorized medals is not 'gain' so it is not fraud. If they do so for gain, then that is fraud, but there are already crimes for that.
> 
> And you can't steal valor or cheapen medals earned, anymore than you can degrade the value of a blackbelt. How would that ever be possible?
> 
> And as far as I know, it is not a crime for a civilian to wear a military uniform, either.


Actually it is:

Title 10, USC, section 771:


> Except as otherwise provided by law, no person  except a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the  case may be, may wear&#8212;
> (1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform,  of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or
> (2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a  distinctive part of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine  Corps.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 19, 2010)

Ahhh, the UCMJ.  Luckily, if they are IN the military, we can take action.  The problem comes when it is a civilian impersonating a military member who is wearing the medals.  

But for those of us who legitimately wear the uniform, if you want to nail them, you certainly can.  There are enough articles in the UCMJ that apply (General Article, Conduct Unbecoming, Making a False Official Statement, etc).


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 19, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Actually it is:
> 
> Title 10, USC, section 771:
> Quote:
> ...



Interesting, thanks.  I wonder why they do not prosecute?

I suspect that there may be a clue buried in 'otherwise provided in law'.

People have been wearing uniforms, or parts of them, for many years in the USA.  Surplus stores do land-office business, teens routinely dress up in cammys and so on.  Actors?  How about veterans like me?  I've been told that I *am* authorized to wear my uniform, so long as I wear it properly, to include conforming to height/weight and grooming standards.  And yet, I often seen old veterans wearing their uniforms or parts of them with full beards, long hair, big bellies, and so on.  Prosecute them too?

I think that perhaps no one is prosecuted under this law because it would be found unconstitutional quickly if challenged.  The only case I could find for a person arrested and prosecuted for this was back in the 1950's, a guy prosecuted for wearing Air Force overalls on base; he was a civilian contractor, but not impersonating an airman.

However, I certainly stand corrected on my original statement.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Fraud is lying for gain. Simply lying about military experience or wearing unauthorized medals is not 'gain' so it is not fraud. If they do so for gain, then that is fraud, but there are already crimes for that.
> 
> And you can't steal valor or cheapen medals earned, anymore than you can degrade the value of a blackbelt. How would that ever be possible?
> 
> And as far as I know, it is not a crime for a civilian to wear a military uniform, either.


 

Walts.
http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Walts


This may the difference between how the British Forces look at life and others do. Oh and it's not for the easily offended or even the not so easily offended. Probably actually only for those with a squaddie sense of things.
Seriously this is how things are looked at, not with huge outrage and threats of proscecution but with humour, okay twisted humour but not a big fuss certainly.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 19, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Walts.
> http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Walts
> 
> 
> ...



Hilarious!  I would then take it that Captain Peacock (actually Corporal, if memory serves) from "Are You Being Served" would be a Walt?

And even the kids who dress up like anime characters?  What sort of Walts are they?


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Hilarious! I would then take it that Captain Peacock (actually Corporal, if memory serves) from "Are You Being Served" would be a Walt?
> 
> And even the kids who dress up like anime characters? What sort of Walts are they?


 

Yep Capt. Peacock is a Walt, the anime kids would be anime walts! There's some good threads on Arrse about individual walts, there's some good threads about all sorts of things actually. It's an unofficial Army site of course 

Derision is the best way to deal with these things...oh  and pity for the walts.... after all they aren't the real thing and will never know how it feels!!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 19, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Yep Capt. Peacock is a Walt, the anime kids would be anime walts! There's some good threads on Arrse about individual walts, there's some good threads about all sorts of things actually. It's an unofficial Army site of course
> 
> Derision is the best way to deal with these things...oh  and pity for the walts.... after all they aren't the real thing and will never know how it feels!!



Yes, I met a fellow in a Marine Corps cap a few years back at a political rally.  He introduced himself to me as a "Marine Corps Corpsman."  Uh, what?  The Marines don't have Corpsmen, they're Navy.  We love them long time, but they're Navy.  No, he insisted, he was part of a pilot program, a Marine but also a Medic.

I just walked away.  Could not think of anything to say.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jul 19, 2010)

Best way that.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jul 19, 2010)

Muay Thai's very own Bob Spour. Now he deserves it, making money off the thing, and slagging off the real deal.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 19, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Interesting, thanks.  I wonder why they do  not prosecute?
> 
> I suspect that there may be a clue buried in 'otherwise provided in  law'.
> 
> ...



If you read through the subsequent sections, you're entitled as a former Marine, honorably discharged.  Similarly, there's an exception for actors & re-enactors.  (And Boy Scouts!)

Why isn't it prosecuted more?  Practicality, I think.  Unless you're actually wearing the full uniform and presenting yourself as a member of the service for some reason...   Also, like you, I don't think it'd pass a reasonableness test.  For example, if I wear a shirt given me by a recruiter featuring the Eagle, Globe & Anchor of the USMC (a "distinctive part of the uniform"), I suppose I'm violating the letter... but not the spirit.  

I think it's kind of like someone wearing a shirt that says "POLICE" on it...  Unless they try to present themselves as a cop, they aren't impersonating the police.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 19, 2010)

It is prosecuted pretty heavily in the right circles.  Do a google search for wearing unauthorized medals or the like.  There are plenty of cases.  Where you really see it is when someone tries to pump up their rack by displaying a few extras or something that they don't deserve, and it is caught when people are standing around comparing and someone figures it out.  It happened to a guy in a unit I was in, he was wearing a silver star that he didn't earn.  The thing is, something like that gets hammered, but doesn't make news.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 19, 2010)

There are some standards for how and when you can wear your uniform when retired.  Those old guys don't have to conform to height/weight standards....but then some of them didn't "officially" retain their rank.  At least, my understanding is that again "OFFICIALLY" meaning to the letter of the law, the only way that you can say Maj (ret) or SGM (Ret), is for certain ranks.  I know that if I got out as an O3, I couldn't call myself a Capt or Capt (Ret), even if I had done my 20.  You are only technically retired if you did your 20.

For standard honorable discharges, there are rules that will allow you to wear your uniform though.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 19, 2010)

MBuzzy said:


> It is prosecuted pretty heavily in the right circles.  Do a google search for wearing unauthorized medals or the like.  There are plenty of cases.  Where you really see it is when someone tries to pump up their rack by displaying a few extras or something that they don't deserve, and it is caught when people are standing around comparing and someone figures it out.  It happened to a guy in a unit I was in, he was wearing a silver star that he didn't earn.  The thing is, something like that gets hammered, but doesn't make news.


Wearing unearned medals and the like is different from simply wearing the uniform or part of it.  I'm not aware of many prosecutions for simply wearing part of a military uniform by itself.  Wearing even a service award that was never earned... yeah, that's prosecuted quite often.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 20, 2010)

MBuzzy said:


> It is prosecuted pretty heavily in the right circles.  Do a google search for wearing unauthorized medals or the like.  There are plenty of cases.  Where you really see it is when someone tries to pump up their rack by displaying a few extras or something that they don't deserve, and it is caught when people are standing around comparing and someone figures it out.  It happened to a guy in a unit I was in, he was wearing a silver star that he didn't earn.  The thing is, something like that gets hammered, but doesn't make news.



That's military prosecution under the UCMJ.  I was thinking more in terms of civilians being prosecuted for wearing a military uniform or parts thereof, which according to the USC cited is illegal.  My reference was that surplus stores do big business selling old field jackets and cammys to college kids.  I never hear of them being arrested for wearing them.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 20, 2010)

MBuzzy said:


> There are some standards for how and when you can wear your uniform when retired.  Those old guys don't have to conform to height/weight standards....but then some of them didn't "officially" retain their rank.  At least, my understanding is that again "OFFICIALLY" meaning to the letter of the law, the only way that you can say Maj (ret) or SGM (Ret), is for certain ranks.  I know that if I got out as an O3, I couldn't call myself a Capt or Capt (Ret), even if I had done my 20.  You are only technically retired if you did your 20.
> 
> For standard honorable discharges, there are rules that will allow you to wear your uniform though.



We were always told in the USMC that we could still break out our old uniforms and wear them but we MUST adhere to both height/weight and grooming standards when doing so.  Again, that's just what we were told.  I don't have a cite.

From a practical point of view, for former enlisted (and not retired), their contracts are up, they're beyond the reach of the UCMJ.  Officers of course are never 'out' of the military as I understand it.  So orders that require former service members to adhere to height/weight and grooming standards may simply not be enforceable.  Kind of a moot point.  Don't do this or we'll...uh...nevermind.  Just don't do it.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 20, 2010)

After separation OR retirement, you are authorized to wear your uniform, but only for certain occassions, where it is proper to wear the uniform and the biggest recurring theme in the documentation is that you can't wear it in a manner that bring discredit to the uniform or the service that it was retired from.  That also means that you can't wear it to events that would discret the service or the uniform.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 20, 2010)

MBuzzy said:


> After separation OR retirement, you are authorized to wear your uniform, but only for certain occassions, where it is proper to wear the uniform and the biggest recurring theme in the documentation is that you can't wear it in a manner that bring discredit to the uniform or the service that it was retired from.  That also means that you can't wear it to events that would discret the service or the uniform.



Well, never saw a prosecution of a civilian for that offense.  I suppose it may have happened, but I can't think of an instance.


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 20, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's military prosecution under the UCMJ. I was thinking more in terms of civilians being prosecuted for wearing a military uniform or parts thereof, which according to the USC cited is illegal. My reference was that surplus stores do big business selling old field jackets and cammys to college kids. I never hear of them being arrested for wearing them.


 
Field jackets and cammies are allowed, provided that they do not have any insignia that would identify it as belonging to a particular service.  Technically Joe Blow could wear a dress blue jacket, provided that he removed all the buttons and the chevrons.  But it's not a good idea, as one of the dance coachs on "So You Think You Can Dance" found out.  She actually had the insignia on it so its possible that she might have been prosecuted, but I imagine the services weigh that sort of thing against the PR fallout.


----------



## zDom (Jul 20, 2010)

I think it sad that something as precious as a Silver Star would be up for sale in the first place.

It should be cherished by one who receives it and, after their passing, by their surviving family members.

If there ARE no family members, than it should end up in a local museum to be viewed in reverence by members of that community.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 20, 2010)

I'm not so sure about the 'reverence' part, *Dom*, for I do not feel that making icons of symbols of war is the way we should be heading; of course if you mean respect for the valour of the *man*, then I quite agree without reservation.

It is my great shame that I lost my grandfathers medal as I child - I was too young to be entrusted with such a thing I think and I lost it whilst playing 'army' in the wheat fields  .  If that had not happened then it would never have been sold; as you say, such a thing should not happen unless someone is driven unto the direst need.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 20, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Interesting, thanks.  I wonder why they do not prosecute?



It's a federal law...probably for the same reasons they don't enforce our immigration laws. :hammer:


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2010)

zDom said:


> I think it sad that something as precious as a Silver Star would be up for sale in the first place.
> 
> It should be cherished by one who receives it and, after their passing, by their surviving family members.
> 
> If there ARE no family members, than it should end up in a local museum to be viewed in reverence by members of that community.


 
Sadly though people fall on hard times and have to sell their precious medals, it shouldn't be that way of course.


----------

