The Stolen Valor Act is bouncing around the courts. The latest ruling at the appellate level has determined that the law, which makes it a crime to lie about your military record, does not violate the First Amendment because, the court reasoned, the F.A. doesn't protect lies. That case involves Rick Strandlof, who told some whoppers in Colorado a few years ago. The veterans he lied too, including some active in IVAW, were mostly as reluctant to challenge him as were civilians. (The Supremes will consider a different challenge to the law, also on First Amendment grounds, probably next month.)
Advocates of unfettered speech are concerned that this expands potential punishment for "false statements of fact" and threatens journalists who publish erroneous news reports. We all know we're not supposed to lie, but if that decision stands, it would be a significant roll backward on press freedom.
I have a different concern, a question: Why are the facts about whether someone was a soldier more sacrosanct than other speech? Making up or exaggerating a military record is remarkably common: politicians, professors and other storytellers get outed for it regularly. Some get away with it (Geo. W. Bush, anyone?), some resign in disgrace.
On the other hand, a lot of veterans play down their wartime actions --out of modesty or revulsion at the question, Did you kill anybody? But sometimes they do it out of guilt for what they did and took part in. Are those false statements also illegal under this law, or would that have to be the Stolen Guilt Act? Because it's all there in the name: that knee-jerk, too-simple-by-half assumption that anyone who puts on a military uniform and makes it out of boot camp is a person of valor; i.e. a hero. And no one should steal from a hero, right? Unless, of course, real valor can be neither bestowed, nor taken away.
