Judge rules Stolen Valor is free speech

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/12...l?intcmp=hpbt4

In case you haven't had enough coffee so far today:



A federal appeals court on Monday tossed out a veteran's conviction for wearing military medals he didn't earn, saying it was a form of free speech protected by the Constitution.

A specially convened 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the First Amendment allows people to wear unearned military honors.

Elven Joe Swisher of Idaho was convicted in 2007 of violating the Stolen Valor Act, which made it a misdemeanor to falsely claim military accomplishments. President George W. Bush signed it into law in 2006, but the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down in 2012 as a violation of free speech protections.

Investigators looked into Swisher's military claims after he testified at the 2005 trial of a man charged with soliciting the murder of a federal judge. Swisher wore a Purple Heart on the witness stand.

Swisher testified that David Roland Hinkson offered him $10,000 to kill the federal judge presiding over Hinkson's tax-evasion case. Swisher said Hinkson was impressed after Swisher boasted that he killed "many men" during the Korean War.

Prosecutors say Swisher enlisted in the Marine Corps a year after the Korean War ended but was never wounded in the line of duty. Swisher was honorably discharged in 1957, and discharge documents indicate that he didn't receive any medals, according to the 9th Circuit ruling.

During his 2007 trial, prosecutors showed the jury a photograph of Swisher wearing several military medals and awards, including the Silver Star, Navy and Marine Corps Ribbon, Purple Heart, and the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with a Bronze "V."

Swisher's attorney Joseph Horras of Boise, Idaho, couldn't immediately be reached for comment Monday.

After the Stolen Valor Act was struck down, Congress passed a new law making it a crime to profit financially by lying about military service. President Barack Obama signed it in 2013.

After Swisher's conviction, Congress removed a provision making it illegal to wear unearned medals.

One of the most confusing articles I've read in a while.

2005 Swisher wears a Purple Heart he did not earn
2006 Bush signed law against falsely claiming military accomplishments.
2007 Swisher convicted for wearing unearned medals
2012 SCOTUS strikes down 2006 law
2013 Obama signed law against profiting financially by lying about military service.
2016 Appeals court tosses out Swisher's 2007 conviction - under a 2006 law that was struck down in 2012?

That about right?

Seems like the 2013 law still stands.

What am I missing

I despise the assholes wearing unearned medals, but I can understand the ruling (free speech).

What is not acceptable is PROFITING from it, and that's what the law now is.

So the question is, did he at any time, profit from his deception? if he did, he should be prosecuted for it.

The full story:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...1/11-35796.pdf

Swisher was convicted in 2007 for wearing unearned medals, forging a DD214, and falsely receiving VA benefits.
He had to pay back the VA.
The law against wearing medals was removed in 2012.
Swisher was butt-hurt about having a conviction on his record for a crime that had been removed, and asked that his prior 2007 conviction (medal wearing portion) be removed.
9th court said OK.
This ruling appears to have no affect on current "Stolen Valor" law.

As long as they're not doing it to profit from it I don't care what they wear.

When I was in grade school, my mom sewed dozens of different military unit insignias that my dad had collected over the years on mine and my brother's jean jackets ... they included my dad's sergeant stripes on the sleeves ... so was that a crime? Should it be?

As for those lying about their service to profit, we already have laws against fraud.

That said, I wouldn't blame a vet from beating the crap out of one of these schmucks if they came across them.

The only thing that concerns me about people wearing uniforms and medals they didn't earn is the potential ability to infiltrate actual military units with nefarious intent (like trying to sneak onto a military base). Within the military, wearing or flaunting unearned medals is easily handled. If a civilian pretends to have served, I personally don't like it, but that's the beauty of a free society. I'm a big fan of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). While I don't like it when idiots masquerade around and represent themselves in a way that may cause people to think that they are affiliated with me, I don't expect mommy to get involved and fix it. Getting your feelings hurt should never be any sort of legal standing or basis for law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

As long as they're not doing it to profit from it I don't care what they wear.

When I was in grade school, my mom sewed dozens of different military unit insignias that my dad had collected over the years on mine and my brother's jean jackets ... they included my dad's sergeant stripes on the sleeves ... so was that a crime? Should it be?

As for those lying about their service to profit, we already have laws against fraud.

That said, I wouldn't blame a vet from beating the crap out of one of these schmucks if they came across them.

---

Should be a protected form of expression under the 1st.

Not the same, but similar concept:
When I was a member of an MC, we did not look kindly upon people wearing patches they did not earn, nor we gave a fuck about their 1st amendment...just sayin'...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

The only thing that concerns me about people wearing uniforms and medals they didn't earn is the potential ability to infiltrate actual military units with nefarious intent (like trying to sneak onto a military base).

---

Plenty of laws covering this. Stolen valor is the least of this person's concerns. Espionage and treason have some pretty stiff penalties...

After reading this, I'm now wondering how 'impersonating a police officer' charges can be enforced.

Time to drop some red and blue lights in my vehicle, don a uniform and badge and do whatever the hell I want until the real law enforcement catches on. Freedom of speech! /sarcasm

Does anyone expect me to listen to someone in a military uniform in the event of an emergency or pull my car over when I see lights?

There is a reason we have rightfully earned uniforms in our society. It is a method of visual trust. With no penalty backing impersonation, a uniform is totally useless.

We might as well put anyone in an earned position of authority in pajamas so that they're at least comfortable when they're dealing with things.

"Time to drop some red and blue lights in my vehicle, don a uniform and badge and do whatever the hell I want until the real law enforcement catches on. Freedom of speech!"

Well, ain't that a damn good point! On the surface, that seems to be the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robb

"Time to drop some red and blue lights in my vehicle, don a uniform and badge and do whatever the hell I want until the real law enforcement catches on. Freedom of speech!"

Well, ain't that a damn good point! On the surface, that seems to be the same thing.

---

Dress like it all you want, put whatever you want in your car... Just don't break the law and try to use them for anything.


Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhood001

There is a reason we have rightfully earned uniforms in our society. It is a method of visual trust. With no penalty backing impersonation, a uniform is totally useless.

---

THIS! While it's all perfectly legal to pose as a military member (I see a bunch of stolen valor videos on the internet that really get my blood boiling), I wish it were also legal to dispense a little "justice" on these guys.

X2 If I saw somebody wearing dolphins who had not earned them, then get shot, it would be difficult to render assistance in any form. I bet I am not alone in the feeling.

To be clear, I'm not advocating shooting anybody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhood001

There is a reason we have rightfully earned uniforms in our society. It is a method of visual trust. With no penalty backing impersonation, a uniform is totally useless.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hound

X2 If I saw somebody wearing dolphins who had not earned them, then get shot, it would be difficult to render assistance in any form. I bet I am not alone in the feeling.

To be clear, I'm not advocating shooting anybody.

---

More likely would be a Trident... in which case I would incessantly berate them if they had not actually earned the coveted Trident.

Years ago, a good friend of mine gave my girlfriend/wife #2 an old leather motorcycle jacket and a SF pin he wanted her to wear on it - he was a Vietnam era Green Beret Colonel.
She was asked about it a couple of times by SF members, but never a problem as she never claimed to have earned it, and told the story of where it came from.
I have no problem with those who may wear pins or patches in memory of friends or family.

Claiming unearned awards is a different story.

This is all exactly what the government wants. When laws contradict each other, they become ambiguous and winners and losers can be picked at random to make an example for the masses of the flavor of the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Lebowski

This is all exactly what the government wants. When laws contradict each other, they become ambiguous and winners and losers can be picked at random to make an example for the masses of the flavor of the day.

---

Nailed it. And this is applicable to a lot more than just stolen valor...

So does this mean it's also first amendment protected to walk around wearing a police badge?

F**k it. I'm going to celebrate my first amendment rights by pretending to be a judge. We'll see how the courts like that one.