A federal appeals court has tossed out an Idaho veteran's conviction in a "stolen valor" case. The judges ruled that the First Amendment protects a person's right to wear a military medal even if that person did not earn it. [More]Say, if a guy can wear a medal he didn't earn, how about a badge? Why wouldn't impersonating an "Only One" be "protected speech"?
Thursday, January 14, 2016
Emblematic of the "You Didn't Earn That" Mindset
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
By the same logic, I think I'll put on my police uniform today.
You know why. A medal confers no present-day authority; it's simply a commemoration of past actions. A badge is a symbol of an office that confers on the officeholder the authority to detain, seize, or even kill other citizens under certain circumstances; its fraudulent use is always in violation of the civil rights of another.
Claiming to be an ex-Army Ranger is no different from claiming to be an ex-Texas Ranger, or an ex-Detroit Lion, as long as the false claim is not used to fraudulently gain benefits.
Like you, I find valor thieves to be repugnant scum. But I've always wondered if there's a First Amendment issue at play here, if it would ever be used as a defense, and what the outcome would be.
Yeah, I actually don't disagree with the ruling, but think it should also open the door to being able to call this guy all kinds of things without a slander or libel liability...
Those lacking a sense of shame probably would not be slandered by the appellation "poseur".
Every veteran that earned their medals were just slapped in the face. I'm not surprised it's in Kommifornia.
Post a Comment