The Supreme Court will decide whether a law making it a crime to lie about having received military medals is constitutional.
The justices said Monday they will consider the validity of the Stolen Valor Act, which passed Congress with overwhelming support in 2006. The federal appeals court in California struck down the law on free speech grounds and another appeals court in Colorado is considering a separate case.
The Obama administration is arguing that the law is reasonable because it only applies to instances in which the speaker intends to portray himself as a medal recipient. Previous high court rulings also have limited First Amendment protection for false statements.
The court almost always reviews lower court rulings that hold federal laws unconstitutional.
Why should it be any more acceptable, or legal, to represent yourself falsely as a former decorated member of the armed services than it is to represent yourself falsely as a police officer, a doctor or a lawyer?
You mean as a FORMER police officer, doctor or lawyer?
Why should it be more unacceptable, or illegal, to represent yourself falsely as a former decorated member of the armed servies than to represent yourself as a former college graduate, former firefighter or former librarian?
The purpose of the act of representing yourself as a decorated veteran when you are not one is to commit fraud from which you will hopefully derive personal benefit. It is not a substantially different form of fraud than telling people that you have cancer in the hopes that they will provide you with something of value when you don't have cancer.