Apparently, the judge in the Strandlof case has declared the Stolen Valor Act a violation of the first amendment. Our friends Doug Sterner (who helped write the act) and POW Net sent us a copy of the decision.<\/p>\n
Now, I’m no lawyer but I’ve been reading the decision and here are the relevant parts of the decision;<\/p>\n
.) Clearly, the Act is intended to preserve the symbolic significance of military medals, but the question whether such an interest is compelling is not at all as manifest as the government\u2019s ipse dixit implies.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
To conclude that the government may permit designated symbols to be used to communicate only a limited set of messages would be to enter territory having no discernible or defensible boundaries. Could the government, on this theory, prohibit the burning of state flags? Of copies of the Presidential seal? Of the Constitution? In evaluating these choices under the First Amendment, how would we decide which symbols were sufficiently special to warrant this unique status? To do so, we would be forced to consult our own political preferences, and impose them on the citizenry, in the very way that the First Amendment forbids us to do. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I have profound faith \u2013 a faith that appears to be questioned by the government here \u2013 that the reputation, honor, and dignity military decorations embody are not so tenuous or ephemeral as to be erased by the mere utterance of a false claim of entitlement. The social approbation that attends those who would attempt to bask in the reflected glory of honors they have not earned demonstrates that the people of this nation continue to revere our brave military men and women regardless of \u2013 or perhaps even more so. Indeed, the fact that grassroots efforts to unmask imposters such as defendant appear to be thriving attests to the veracity of this proposition. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We are fortified in today’s conclusion by our conviction that forbidding criminal punishment for conduct such as [defendant\u2019s] will not endanger the special role played by our flag or the feelings it inspires. . . . .
\nWe are tempted to say, in fact, that the flag’s deservedly cherished place in our community will be strengthened, not weakened, by our holding today. <\/p>\nOur decision is a reaffirmation of the principles of freedom and inclusiveness that the flag best reflects, and of the conviction that our toleration of criticism . . . is a sign and source of our strength. . . . It is the Nation’s resilience, not its rigidity, that [the government] sees reflected in the flag \u2013 and it is that resilience that we reassert today.
\n. . . . We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents. Johnson, 109 S.Ct. at 2547-48. Imposters such as defendant abase themselves. Fortunately, their disingenuousness is insufficient to undermine the stalwart and unswerving dignity and honor of our true military heroes, and of the military awards that recognize their sacrifices on behalf of a grateful nation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\nTHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
\n1. That defendant\u2019s Motion To Dismiss Information [#13] filed December 2, 2009, is GRANTED;<\/p>\n2. That The Stolen Valor Act is DECLARED to be facially unconstitutional as a content-based restriction on speech that does not serve a compelling government interest, and consequently that the Act is invalid as violative of the First Amendment;<\/p>\n
3. That the Amended Information [#15] filed December 14, 2009, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and<\/p>\n
4. That the defendant and his bond ARE DISCHARGED.
\nDated July 16, 2010, at Denver, Colorado.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\nSo, numbnuts Judge Robert E. Blackburn of the Federal Court District of Colorado, (he was appointed by GW Bush on September 10th 2001 ironically) says that claiming false medal and military service equates to burning the flag – although there is a political message in burning the flag, and none in claiming service and medals. He also claims there are no victims – as I’ve pointed out countless times, there are indeed victims of phonies<\/a>.<\/p>\n
I’ll add more as I read more. Maybe our legal expert will weigh in.<\/p>\n