“We want to be able to identify these people, and despite the fact that other idiots making false claims won’t really affect our ability to do that, and doesn’t actually hurt anyone in any material or tangible way, we’ll place a restriction on freedom of expression anyway, just because it makes us feel better.”
Look, as i’ve already said, i think the Supremes will uphold the law, but anyone who supports it is only kidding himself if he thinks he believes in freedom of expression.
How will other idiots making false claims not affect our ability to do that? If I put on a replica medal and tell you I’m Sergeant Mike and I pulled a man out of a burning helicopter in Basra, how are you going to figure out I’m not?
ETA: Sorry to all, including mhendo, for the personal comment.
Because,these things an be checked, for one thing. And for another, even if the law is found to be unconstitutional, only a deluded person believes that it will result in a rash of fake claims to military service.
But anyway, focusing on this part of the argument is putting the cart about a mile before the horse. Before we even worry about whether or not it can be checked, we need to ask whether the false claim actually does anybody any harm. I’ve make clear in the past, both in this thread and other ones, that if the false claim of military service rises to the level of causing somebody material tangible harm, in the way that fraud does, then I support punishing it. But if all it is is a claim, and doesn’t cause anyone to part with any money, or give up any privilege, or cause any tangible harm to the person being lied to, then all it is is just another lie, and not something that should be criminalized. And, as I’ve already said, anyone who supports criminalizing a lie simply for being a lie doesn’t really support free speech, no matter how much they might think that they do.
In the scheme of cases that go to SCOTUS, this one has some very simple issues. Basically, everything that could be said one way or another has been said in the 9th Circuit. It is what one judge I know used to call a “beauty contest”.
Other cases that go to ultimate courts of appeal typically have attendant complexities that make the game of tea leaf reading much more difficult, and accordingly the fact of grant of review is a much less compelling indicator of the outcome.
As a basic question of principle, it really doesn’t matter to me if you print counterfeit currency, as long as you never use it. I understand why they make printing counterfeit currency illegal, because the people who make counterfeit currency make it precisely in order to use it, and the use of it constitutes a material or tangible harm to other members of society.
If every assertion of military service was accompanied by material or tangible harm, or if such assertions, once uttered, remained extant and could be used in the future (in the way that counterfeit currency remains extant and can be used in the future), then you might have a point. But they don’t, so you don’t.
Your argument would be a lot more compelling if you would simply say “I don’t like it, so it should be illegal.” That, at least, would have the benefit of being an explicitly subjective, moral argument. I might not agree with it, and I might continue to believe that it shows a lack of commitment to freedom of expression, but at least it wouldn’t be quite as tendentious as the arguments that you’ve been making in your last few posts.
At a guess, since the Supreme Court of the US, like most Courts of Last Resort, overturns most cases that it agrees to hear (I think for the SCOTUS it is something like 70% of all cases are overturned).
Also, in this case the Courts below relied heavily on SCOTUS precedent. The granting of Certiorari seems to indicate that the SCOTUS is ready to depart from/add a proviso to its previous rulings.
If there had been a long history, a history as long as humanity itself, of people mostly creating counterfeit currency just to admire it and show it off to others without actually getting anything for it, I’d guess it would only be illegal when it was used. You can practice painting just like Monet; it’s only illegal when you try to sell one as authentic or otherwise defraud someone.
OK, I’ll try again to answer the question, “Why does it matter?”
We honor those who serve the republic’s armed forces well, even to the point of sacrificing their lives, by giving them medals. These medals carry a noteworthy measure of honor, prestige and importance among many, if not all, of the honorees’ fellow citizens. This has been so even since before the ratification of the Constitution; Gen. George Washington awarded the first U.S. military honor, the Badge of Military Merit, to three soldiers in 1780. If anyone could lawfully lie and claim to have been awarded any such medals, or even go so far as to wear them, no one could ever be sure if anyone had actually been so honored (especially since there is no single swift and convenient means for the public to investigate Defense Department records in this regard). It would cheapen the medal for those who had been awarded them, and put those servicemembers under a cloud of public doubt and uncertainty.
The United States has an interest in seeing that its medals are claimed and worn only by those who were actually awarded them, just as it has an interest in not having its currency, stamps, securities, certificates, documents, records etc. forged, altered or misused. The republic’s interest is far greater than the First Amendment interest of those who wish to claim medals to which they are not entitled.
The fact that you would argue that claiming medals that you didn’t earn is equivalent to forging, altering or misusing these things suggests that you are grasping at straws here.
For one thing, all of the other things you list here involve either creating of tampering with an actual official document. The simple act of claiming to have won a medal is nothing more than that—a verbal claim. It does not necessitate creating or wearing a false medal.
Secondly, even if someone does wear a false medal, the purpose of doing so should be relevant. All of those other things (currency, etc.) are usually done specifically and only to gain some sort of material advantage, often by defrauding someone else out of some tangible thing. People forge or alter things like currency and securities in order to defraud others out of money and stuff.
If the only purpose of forging or altering currency or securities was to have some chick at a party think you are cool, i wouldn’t have much of a problem with that, either, at least in principle. And, as i’ve said already, if false claims of military service or medals are used to defraud someone (rather than just deceive them, to no material disadvantage), then i have no problem with prosecuting the imposter for fraud or some similar statute.
Finally, if true armed service members fall under “a cloud of public doubt and uncertainty” because of a few moronic imposters, then the people at least partly to blame for that are the members of the public. The existence of some imposters doesn’t change the way i feel about the people who actually did serve, and who did earn those medals. I don’t go around wondering whether every service member that i encounter (and in San Diego, it’s not an infrequent thing) is some sort of self-promoting fraud. The fact of some asshole liars in our society doesn’t change the way i interact with current or former members of the armed forces, nor does it in any way devalue their very real service or their heroism.
mhendo’s argument is much more compelling to me than yours is.
Do you think falsely claiming to have won a Presidential Medal of Freedom should bear penalties? How about a Citizen’s Valor Award given by a police department? What about saying you’re an Eagle Scout? Nobel Laureate? Poet Laureate? Employee of the Month? National Merit Scholar? Dean’s List? National Honor Society? Mensa? Perfect Attendance Award?
Printing counterfeit money and falsely claiming medals aren’t exactly parallel. First, it’s a stretch to argue that printing money is protected speech. Second, the power to print money is specifically granted to Congress in the Constitution, so there are two Constitutional issues in play instead of only one.
There is a much larger interest (both economic and social) to preventing lying on a resume. The economic harm that stems from decreased productivity and business instability far surpasses any dream of degraded fawning over the military.
There are thousands of examples that aptly demonstrate that the Republic’s interest in the First Amendment dwarfs chimerical concerns over such specious interests.
Disagree. I don’t know about the Medla of Honor, but there is a Purple Heart lapel pin, intended for wear on a suit jacket. There is nothing remotely inappropriate about wearing it.
