It appears there is a rosette but not a lapel pin, as such, for winners of the Medal of Honor: Medal of Honor - Wikipedia
So when is the appropriate time to wear a medal?
On an Olympic podium, of course.
And that’s why this is a first amendment issue. Because what you’re arguing here is that the government should be enforcing a particular opinion about the worthiness of military service, and penalizing people who do not agree with that opinion (in, admittedly, a fairly narrow way). I don’t think that’s the proper role of government.
I think that what many posters are overlooking is that by lying about having a military medal, a person is implicitly inducing others to act for his benefit. Whether that is a drink, a meal on the house, or a piece of ass from the hottie at the bar, the lie is for the purpose of some benefit.
Again, what speech or expression is being stifled by this law?
Distinct from someone having a private cause of action in civil court, you would grant the government the authority and power to outlaw any deviation from the truth under any circumstances? What if someone claims to make more money than they do in order to induce a “piece of ass” into bed, or any other bit of puffery by which they potentially could get an additional benefit. You would grant the government the ability to put that person in jail? How awfully repugnant to the core of the First Amendment.
Well, there’s this bit: Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. While not unlimited (fire in a theater, yadda yadda), mere lying for the nebulous concept of personal gain via other’s respect is far from previous exceptions and without any tangible, credible threat to civil society.
If you wish to continue to put forth the idea that the government has a cognizable interest high enough to surmount the relatively epic hurdle to curtailing speech, then you either need to concede that you wish to grant the government the authority to ban lies for any similarly thin societal harm, or wholly distinguish why the practice of inflating resumes is not also within the purview of government prohibition. Or lying in a bar about any subject matter. Or embellishing any record of accomplishment. And given the brouhaha over the sanctity of marriage, distinguish it from lying to your spouse.
If I tell a hottie at the bar that I am a movie producer looking for new talent (but actually lookin’ to get laid), I might be a jerk, but it shouldn’t be criminal. IMO.
Using the standard that you have outlined here, do you believe that we should also prohibit the sort of lies alluded to by jsgoddess earlier?
Should it be illegal to tell a woman in a bar that i’m a movie producer or a hedge fund manager in order to get her to have a drink with me? Should i be allowed to claim that i went to Stanford in order to convince a snobby neighbor to nominate me for a golf club membership? Should the law prohibit university students from claiming that their car broke down and prevented them from arriving at the exam on time?
ETA: And mlees beat me by a minute!
Most of those things aren’t awards granted by the government, and hence none of this applies. Anyway, we’re not talking about lying, period; the Ninth Circuit ruling is limited to wearing a medal and pretending it’s yours. Unless there is a cross-appeal, that’s all that SCOTUS will consider.
You’re still free to lie about medals.
Really?
The article that Elendil’s Heir linked to in reviving this thread says:
And the guy in the case, Alvarez, was never accused of wearing a medal. He verbally introduced himself as a Medal of Honor recipient.
Here is the SCOTUSblog entry for the case.
You’re right. I misread something I posted the first time we did this.
Fair enough.
Let me ask you something, then.
When you said, in your previous post, that “You’re still free to lie about medals,” this seemed to imply that you think that there is an important difference between wearing fake medals, on the one hand, and just lying about having won them, on the other.
Do you think that? And if so, do you think that a law that criminalizes something that is just a verbal claim, like the Stolen Valor Act does, is a good law?
My position is no, I don’t believe that those lies should be illegal, nor do I support the Stolen Valor Act. However, I don’t see a constitutional problem with these laws. The laws don’t stifle the expression of any type of protected idea. There is no constitutional right to spread misinformation, especially misinformation likely to induce people to act to their detriment.
Yes, I think there’s a difference. I have a problem with the law to the extent that it penalizes pure speech. I have no problem with the provisions of the law relating to actual physical medals.
The Westboro Baptist Church manages it just fine.
No, they’re merely expressing their opinions however vulgar.
So, you think someone should not be punished – nay, should be rewarded – for falsely claiming to be on the raid that got Osama? After all, that makes it easier for the government to protect the identities of the real mission personnel.
That’s, like, the worst analogy ever.
On the contrary, it is precisely on point. You posited the standard based on society’s determination that certain individuals should be more readily identified than others; I pointed out the inescapable logical conclusion arising from that standard.
Except for the part where the conclusion is neither logical nor inescapable.