Some worthless puke by the name of Xavier Alvarez, claimed that as a marine he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor:
On July 23, 2007, Xavier Alvarez, a director of the (Los Angeles) Three Valley Water District Board of Directors, introduced himself at a board meeting by saying: “I’m a retired marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. I’m still around.” Each of these statements — with the exception of “I’m still around” — was a lie. Alvarez was indicted and convicted under the 2005 federal Stolen Valor Act for falsely claiming that he had been awarded the Medal of Honor (the nation’s highest military honor).
He had just won the seat on its board of directors and thought he’d celebrate by recounting his exploits. The trouble is, the mutherfucker never served in the military.
Notice the uniform. It’s a pair of Army Dress Blues. Not only did he claim to be in the military, but he’s wearing the uniform of a branch that doesn’t belong to the one in which he claimed to have served. He must have spend an entire day in the PX buying all those ribbons, insignia, and badges, which he slapped onto the uniform without checking for proper placement.
Here’s Alvarez excusing his behavior by saying everything he said was “taken out of context”:
The government said Alvarez should be prosecuted because the speech fits into the “narrowly limited” classes of speech, such as defamation, that is historically unprotected by the First Amendment. Congress, when adopting the law, said fraudulent claims about military honors “damage the reputation and meaning of such decorations and medals.”
Alvarez was the first person ever charged and convicted under the act, which has ensnared dozens of defendants. Alvarez pleaded guilty, was fined $5,000 and ordered to perform 416 hours of community service. He appealed his conviction to the 9th Circuit.
The 9th Circuit, an infamous cluster of leftwing moonbats, ruled in the assclown’s favor.
And the Supreme Court just gave assholes like Alvarez a pass by ruling that committing an act of stolen valor is perfectly acceptable under the First Amendment.
Via the SCOTUS Blog:
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.
The plurality and the concurrence also suggest that Congress could protect the system of military honors by enacting a narrower statute. The plurality recommends a law that would apply only to lies that are intended to “secure moneys or other valuable considerations.” Ante, at 11. In a similar vein, the concurrence comments that “a more finely tailored statute might . . . insist upon a showing that the false statement caused specific harm.” Ante,at 9 (opinion of BREYER, J.). But much damage is caused, both to real award recipients and to the system of military honors, by false statements that are not linked to any financial or other tangible reward. Unless even a small financial loss—say, a dollar given to a homeless man falsely claiming to be a decorated veteran—is more important in the eyes of the First Amendment than the damage caused to the very integrity of the military awards system, there is no basis for distinguishing between the Stolen Valor Act and the alternative statutes that the plurality and concurrence appear willing to sustain.
So, essentially what they are saying is that the bill needs to be written much like Fraud Statutes. This is already happening in part, as Congressman Joe Heck of Nevada has already authored one in HR 1775:
“Heck offered a tacit endorsement of that ruling a few months later when he offered a new Stolen Valor Act that achieves almost the same ends as the one being challenged at the Supreme Court, while steering fully clear of the matter of speech.
Heck’s law makes it a crime to benefit from falsely claiming to have served in the military or have been decorated for that service. Individuals who knowingly lie “with intent to obtain anything of value” would be subject to the same prison terms: Up to six months for basic lies about military service, and up to a year for lying about receiving the Medal of Honor, should those lies be told with the intention of gaining a job, a reward, or other thing of value.
The bill doesn’t specify exactly what “anything of value” is, though a de minimis clause in the bill suggests it couldn’t be applied if the thing procured by lying is of minimal value, such as a beer at a bar. The thing in question must also have a value that is quantifiable, so lies about military service told with the intention of getting the attention, a date, or something less gentlemanly with a person at that same bar is also likely not prosecutable.”
HERE’s a rundown of some phony military wannabes exposed at Jon Lilyea’s This Ain’t Hell site. Every one of them is a steaming pile of dog shit. They’re some of the worst pathological liars on the planet, and they see nothing wrong with their malfeasance.
More at POW Network.
I don’t know where in the hell impersonating a member of the military is protected under the constitution. I’ve read the document, and I’ve never seen any reference to that so-called “right”.
Lying about your military service, fraud, and impersonating is “ free speech”? Well hell, in that case, just provide a fill-in-the-blank DD214 for these turds so they can create their own “history”, carte blanche.
What about perjury, obstruction of justice, or impersonating a police officer or a doctor? Can I computer-generate a law-school diploma along with an impressive resume, and call myself a judge?
It’s not a victimless crime. People are conned into giving donations and unearned prestige to these phony turds; sometimes entire communities are suckered into believing the wild-assed stories of fake fabulists.
It’s called “Stolen Valor” for a reason.