8 replies to this topic

[JudgeBrown]

In United States v. Alvarez, No. 11-210, a highly anticipated First Amendment case, the Court held six to three that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional. The Stolen Valor Act, 18 U.S.C. § 704, makes it a federal crime to lie about having received a military decoration or medal, punishable by up to a year in prison if the offense involved the military’s highest honors. The key issue in this case is whether knowingly false statements of fact – made without any apparent intent to defraud – are a protected form of speech, and if so, what level of protection they deserve.
Justice Kennedy announced a plurality opinion – joined by the Chief Justice, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Sotomayor – and concluding that the Stolen Valor Act infringes on protected speech. The plurality reasoned that, with only narrow exceptions, content-based restrictions on speech face strict scrutiny, and are therefore almost always unconstitutional. False statements of fact do not fall within one of these exceptions, and so the Stolen Valor Act can survive strict scrutiny only if it is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. The Court concluded that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional because the Government had not shown that the statute is necessary to protect the integrity of the system of military honors – the interest the Government had identified in support of the Act.
Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Kagan, concurred separately, concluding that the Stolen Valor Act, as drafted, violates intermediate scrutiny. These Justices argued that intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate standard because the Government should have some ability to regulate false statements of fact. However, because the statute, as drafted, applies even in family, social, or other private contexts where lies will often cause little harm; it includes few other limits on its scope, and it creates too significant a burden on protected speech. The concurring Justices believe that the Government could achieve its goals in a less burdensome way, and so they too held the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional. This opinion leaves open the possibility that Congress will re-write the law more narrowly. Three Justices, led by Justice Alito, dissented.


http://www.supremeco.../11-210d4e9.pdf

[53 Esquire]

I know the law can easily be rewritten to survive the intermediate scrutiny standard. Alvarez clearly had an intent to defraud - but my question is why would someone make the claim without some intent to defraud? It seems axiomatic to me -that is the intent.

18 year old gets kicked out of Basic Combat Training with a failure to adapt. Goes home and tells Grandma that he went to Iraq and was awarded an Army Achievement Medal. She is impressed. He former screwup grandson is no a "hero." Didn't he defraud her?

[Patched Tube]

I know the law can easily be rewritten to survive the intermediate scrutiny standard. Alvarez clearly had an intent to defraud - but my question is why would someone make the claim without some intent to defraud? It seems axiomatic to me -that is the intent.

18 year old gets kicked out of Basic Combat Training with a failure to adapt. Goes home and tells Grandma that he went to Iraq and was awarded an Army Achievement Medal. She is impressed. He former screwup grandson is no a "hero." Didn't he defraud her?

Question: does "fraud" in this case imply some tangible gain - puffing up your resume to increase the chances of getting a job, gettng elected or recieving some sort of public and/or private benifits as opposed to a more intangible benifit like grandma thinking well of her screw up grandson? Not sure how to put this in legalize but I think you get my intent - i.e. is the court defining fraud as something that can put goods or services in your pocket?

In any case I certainly hope the law can be rewritten to pass legal muster in the wake of the decision. Nothing disgusts me more than somebody who would claim combat honors they have not earned. I realize stocks and pillorys would be considered "cruel and unusual" but I hope I can forgiven for thinking a large dose of public (VERY public) ridicule and humilation would be an appropriate part of the punishment for this particular offense.

[Robwarrior]

I know the law can easily be rewritten to survive the intermediate scrutiny standard. Alvarez clearly had an intent to defraud - but my question is why would someone make the claim without some intent to defraud? It seems axiomatic to me -that is the intent.

18 year old gets kicked out of Basic Combat Training with a failure to adapt. Goes home and tells Grandma that he went to Iraq and was awarded an Army Achievement Medal. She is impressed. He former screwup grandson is no a "hero." Didn't he defraud her?

Question: does "fraud" in this case imply some tangible gain - puffing up your resume to increase the chances of getting a job, gettng elected or recieving some sort of public and/or private benifits as opposed to a more intangible benifit like grandma thinking well of her screw up grandson? Not sure how to put this in legalize but I think you get my intent - i.e. is the court defining fraud as something that can put goods or services in your pocket?

In any case I certainly hope the law can be rewritten to pass legal muster in the wake of the decision. Nothing disgusts me more than somebody who would claim combat honors they have not earned. I realize stocks and pillorys would be considered "cruel and unusual" but I hope I can forgiven for thinking a large dose of public (VERY public) ridicule and humilation would be an appropriate part of the punishment for this particular offense.

It angers me too when people claim service, commendations and injuries that are bogus. But people lie everyday. The fraud statues are in place for those instances where lies are used in an attempt to fraudulently secure something of value or injure another party. I am always wary of creating special circumstances. It is kind of like hate crimes. Too me, if you assault or murder someone, it is always a crime of hate. Your motiviation for the hatred should be immaterial. To me a simpler legal code is a more efficient one and special circumstances lead to more special circumstances which actually create more problems than their worth.

[53 Esquire]

I know the law can easily be rewritten to survive the intermediate scrutiny standard. Alvarez clearly had an intent to defraud - but my question is why would someone make the claim without some intent to defraud? It seems axiomatic to me -that is the intent.

18 year old gets kicked out of Basic Combat Training with a failure to adapt. Goes home and tells Grandma that he went to Iraq and was awarded an Army Achievement Medal. She is impressed. He former screwup grandson is no a "hero." Didn't he defraud her?

Question: does "fraud" in this case imply some tangible gain - puffing up your resume to increase the chances of getting a job, gettng elected or recieving some sort of public and/or private benifits as opposed to a more intangible benifit like grandma thinking well of her screw up grandson? Not sure how to put this in legalize but I think you get my intent - i.e. is the court defining fraud as something that can put goods or services in your pocket?

In any case I certainly hope the law can be rewritten to pass legal muster in the wake of the decision. Nothing disgusts me more than somebody who would claim combat honors they have not earned. I realize stocks and pillorys would be considered "cruel and unusual" but I hope I can forgiven for thinking a large dose of public (VERY public) ridicule and humilation would be an appropriate part of the punishment for this particular offense.

I think those are some the right questions. How about instead of fond feelings, she changes her will?

How about Monday night done at sister Suzy's ball when he talks Jane into the sack based on his "service?"
Tuesday at the old dance hall does Lorraine have recourse?
Certainly by Wednesday Nancy Lee at the Road House Inn is being defrauded, isn't she?
Thursday night Betty Lou at the Lion's Den only went home with him because of that AAM - certainly she was defrauded.
How about Sue at the Chatter Box that Friday night?

[Robwarrior]

I know the law can easily be rewritten to survive the intermediate scrutiny standard. Alvarez clearly had an intent to defraud - but my question is why would someone make the claim without some intent to defraud? It seems axiomatic to me -that is the intent.

18 year old gets kicked out of Basic Combat Training with a failure to adapt. Goes home and tells Grandma that he went to Iraq and was awarded an Army Achievement Medal. She is impressed. He former screwup grandson is no a "hero." Didn't he defraud her?

Question: does "fraud" in this case imply some tangible gain - puffing up your resume to increase the chances of getting a job, gettng elected or recieving some sort of public and/or private benifits as opposed to a more intangible benifit like grandma thinking well of her screw up grandson? Not sure how to put this in legalize but I think you get my intent - i.e. is the court defining fraud as something that can put goods or services in your pocket?

In any case I certainly hope the law can be rewritten to pass legal muster in the wake of the decision. Nothing disgusts me more than somebody who would claim combat honors they have not earned. I realize stocks and pillorys would be considered "cruel and unusual" but I hope I can forgiven for thinking a large dose of public (VERY public) ridicule and humilation would be an appropriate part of the punishment for this particular offense.

I think those are some the right questions. How about instead of fond feelings, she changes her will?

How about Monday night done at sister Suzy's ball when he talks Jane into the sack based on his "service?"
Tuesday at the old dance hall does Lorraine have recourse?
Certainly by Wednesday Nancy Lee at the Road House Inn is being defrauded, isn't she?
Thursday night Betty Lou at the Lion's Den only went home with him because of that AAM - certainly she was defrauded.
How about Sue at the Chatter Box that Friday night?

How do we know getting Jane in the sack is a tangible gain? It could be bad sex and she might turn out to be a stalker.

[Magnus]

Yeah, or maybe she hates veterans and goes around fucking as many as she can, to spread some horrible STI.


I'd guess it would be hard to make "stealing valor" illegal unless it can be demonstrated that someone is claiming these things to get a tangible benefit. People lie all the time without breaking the law. It makes them douchebags, not criminals.

If someone at GL told everyone (untruthfully) that they used to work as "Bruce's personal chef" on the Rising tour, or that they partied with Bruce at Greasy Lake in 1969 and they crawled into the lake in their socks and a shirt, just to get more "fan cred" and general attention, I don't think they would be breaking the law - they'd just be a huge loser.

[Welby]

And that's why fake tits should be illegal.

[Chuck]

Certainly by Wednesday Nancy Lee at the Road House Inn is being defrauded, isn't she?

All well and good, but the RHI closed 2 weeks ago - the memo apparently didn't make it to Cairo.