At War: Courts Weigh Efforts to Guard Valor and Speech

At what point does a lie become a crime?

Every day, countless people tell co-workers, spouses or friends untruths about any number of things ranging from the mundane to the important: whether the dishes are done, the points scored in a pickup basketball game, fidelity.

But when it comes to lying about a being a war hero, the current law is clear. You can’t do it.

A federal law passed in 2006 called the Stolen Valor Act makes it a crime to falsely claim to be a decorated service member or veteran. Anyone who violates the law can face up to a year in prison, fines and community service.

According to Doug Sterner, a Vietnam veteran who has spent years tracking down those who make such claims and who helped draft the law, thousands of Americans lie each year about being war heroes. Most are never prosecuted.

All of this helped lead to the passage of the Stolen Valor Act, created to broaden an existing law that made it illegal to wear war medals if you’d never earned them. Stolen Valor also made it illegal to falsely claim to be a decorated veteran either verbally or in writing — which happens frequently, Mr. Sterner says.

Over the past few years, though, the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act has been challenged several times. And now, a federal appeals court in Denver is weighing that very question in the case of Richard G. Strandlof, a mentally troubled drifter who lied about having served in the military.

In 2009, Mr. Strandlof, using the alias Rick Duncan, conned other Colorado veterans into believing that he was a Marine who had been wounded in Iraq and earned a Silver Star. His account was so compelling and convincing that he was able to start a local veterans group, speak out for homeless vets and become a respected voice of the veterans’ movement in the Denver area. Yet he never served a day in the military.

After other veterans began suspecting something was amiss, Mr. Strandlof was arrested by the F.B.I. and charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act.

Though he admitted his ruse, Mr. Strandlof has aggressively fought the case against him. His lawyers — federal public defenders — have argued that the law violates his right to free speech and that simply telling a lie doesn’t always mean you’ve committed a crime.

Last July, a judge agreed and dismissed the case against Mr. Strandlof on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment.

But federal prosecutors appealed the ruling, arguing that lying about being a war hero should not qualify as protected free speech — much like fraud or perjury. Moreover, prosecutors have contended that telling these sorts of lies are harmful — to the military awards system and to the soldiers who truly earned them.

In many cases, the lies told about military heroism usually lead directly to monetary gain or enhanced status for those who tell them, said Mr. Sterner, who is in the process of compiling a Web database for the Military Times of those people who did actually receive military awards.

“Stolen Valor in and of itself is fraud,” he said. “In almost every case I have seen to date, there is associated fraud, whether that’s monetary value or other things of value the perpetrator has obtained for himself.”

Mr. Strandlof’s federal public defender, John T. Carlson, sees things differently. In an e-mail response to questions about the case, he wrote that Stolen Valor was unconstitutional because, among other things, “The speech it targets — whether characterized broadly as ‘false statements’ or more narrowly as lies about military medals — does not fall into any of the well defined categories of false statements historically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment, categories such as defamation, fraud, perjury and false declarations to government agencies.”

Mr. Carlson added that if the law were to be upheld, it would call into question the legality of everyday lies — big and small — that are commonplace in society.

The United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit heard oral arguments on the case last week and is likely to issue a ruling in the coming months.

Those watching Mr. Strandlof’s case believe the Supreme Court will eventually weigh in to help clarify divergent rulings on the law.

Last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found the law unconstitutional in the case of Xavier Alvarez, a former board member for a municipal water district near Los Angeles, who boasted about being wounded in combat and claimed he received the Medal of Honor (he also claimed to have played for the Detroit Red Wings). Mr. Alvarez never served in the military.

In 2008, Mr. Alvarez pleaded guilty to violating the act on the condition he could appeal. But the appellate court reversed his conviction, finding in a 2-to-1 decision that the lies covered under the Stolen Valor Act were too broad.

The federal judge who wrote the opinion in the case, Milan D. Smith, Jr., mirrored Mr. Carlson’s point. According to Judge Smith, upholding Stolen Valor could criminalize garden variety deceptions. Lying about how much money you have, whether you’re a virgin or whether you smoke or drink were all examples Judge Smith used.

“The sad fact is, most people lie about some aspects of their lives from time to time,” he wrote.

Earlier this year, though, a federal judge in Virginia disagreed with the decision of the Ninth Circuit court in the case of Ronnie Robbins, a former revenue commissioner of Dickenson County. Mr. Robbins had claimed while campaigning that he was a decorated Vietnam veteran, but in reality he never deployed overseas while in the Army.

The judge, James P. Jones, found that false speech covered by Stolen Valor was not protected by the First Amendment, and that it was pretty unlikely that the federal government would suddenly start interfering with everyday fibs.

In March, a jury found Mr. Robbins guilty, and he’s scheduled for sentencing in July.

All of this is happening as a revised Stolen Valor Act, sponsored by Representative Joe Heck, Republican of Nevada, is drawing attention. Mr. Heck’s bill tries to put to rest free speech challenges to Stolen Valor by making it a fraud to benefit, or intend to benefit, from lying about being a military hero.

“The Ninth Circuit ruling found that you basically have a First Amendment right to lie,” he said in a recent interview. “The purpose of this legislation is to close the loophole by saying that if you misrepresent your military service and any awards in order to gain something of value, you’ve committed an act of fraud. So it’s not just a simple First Amendment issue.”

Meanwhile, in light of the recent raid that killed Osama bin Laden, Mr. Sterner says he’s already noticed a surge in a new group of people claiming to be decorated war heroes: fake Navy Seals.

View the original article here

India Puts Tight Leash on Internet Free Speech

 

MUMBAI, India — Free speech advocates and Internet users are protesting new Indian regulations restricting Web content that, among other things, can be considered “disparaging,” “harassing,” “blasphemous” or “hateful.”

The new rules, quietly issued by the country’s Department of Information Technology earlier this month and only now attracting attention, allow officials and private citizens to demand that Internet sites and service providers remove content they consider objectionable on the basis of a long list of criteria.

Critics of the new rules say the restrictions could severely curtail debate and discussion on the Internet, whose use has been growing fast in India.

The list of objectionable content is sweeping and includes anything that “threatens the unity, integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order.”

The rules highlight the ambivalence with which Indian officials have long treated freedom of expression. The country’s constitution allows “reasonable restrictions” on free speech but lawmakers have periodically stretched that definition to ban books, movies and other material about sensitive subjects like sex, politics and religion.

An Indian state, for example, recently banned an American author’s new biography of the Indian freedom fighter Mohandas Gandhi that critics have argued disparages Mr. Gandhi by talking about his relationship with another man.

Although fewer than 10 percent of Indians have access to the Internet, that number has been growing fast — especially on mobile devices. There are more than 700 million cellphone accounts in India.

The country has also established a thriving technology industry that writes software and creates Web services primarily for Western clients.

Even before the new rules — known as the Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011 — India has periodically tried to restrict speech on the Internet. In 2009, the government banned a popular and graphic online comic strip, Savita Bhabhi, about a housewife with an active sex life. Indian officials have also required social networking sites like Orkut to take down posts deemed offensive to ethnic and religious groups.

Using a freedom of information law, the Center for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based research and advocacy group, recently obtained and published a list of 11 Web sites banned by the Department of Information Technology. Other government agencies have probably blocked more sites, the group said.

The new Internet rules go further than existing Indian laws and restrictions, said Sunil Abraham, the executive director for the Center for Internet and Society. The rules require Internet “intermediaries” — an all-encompassing group that includes sites like YouTube and Facebook and companies that host Web sites or provide Internet connections — to respond to any demand to take down offensive content within 36 hours. The rules do not provide a way for content producers to defend their work or appeal a decision to take content down.

“These rules overly favor those who want to clamp down on freedom of expression,” Mr. Abraham said. “Whenever there are limits of freedom of expression, in order for those limits to be considered constitutionally valid, those limits have to be clear and not be very vague. Many of these rules that seek to place limits are very, very vague.”

An official for the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, an advocacy group based in New Delhi, said on Wednesday that it was considering a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the new rules.

“What are we, Saudi Arabia?” said Pushkar Raj, the group’s general secretary. “We don’t expect this from India. This is something very serious.”

An official at the Department of Information Technology, Gulshan Rai, did not return calls and messages.

The rules are based on a 2008 information technology law that India’s Parliament passed shortly after a three-day siege on Mumbai by Pakistan-based terrorists that killed more than 163 people. That law, among other things, granted authorities more expansive powers to monitor electronic communications for reasons of national security. It also granted privacy protections to consumers.

While advocates for free speech and civil liberties have complained that the 2008 law goes too far in violating the rights of Indians, Internet firms have expressed support for it. The law removed liability from Internet intermediaries as long as they were not active participants in creating content that was later deemed to be offensive.

Subho Ray, the president of the Internet and Mobile Association of India, which represents companies like Google and eBay, said the liability waiver was a big improvement over a previous law that had been used to hold intermediaries liable for hosting content created by others. In 2004, for instance, the police arrested eBay’s top India executive because a user of the company’s Indian auction site had offered to sell a video clip of a teenage couple having sex.

“The new I.T. Act (2008) is, in fact, a large improvement on the old one,” Mr. Ray said in an e-mail response to questions.

Mr. Ray said his association had not taken a stand on the new regulations. An India-based spokeswoman for Google declined to comment on the new rules, saying the company needed more time to respond.

Along with the new content regulations, the government also issued rules governing data security, Internet cafes and the electronic provision of government services.

 

Magnetic fields shut down speech, permit love songs (video)

 You already know the strange powers of Stephin Merritt, but today we're talking about real magnetic fields. Powerful electromagnets, it turns out, can do remarkable things to the brain -- in this case, prevent a volunteer from reciting "Humpty Dumpty." The carefully directed magnets temporarily disrupt the brain's speech centers; the volunteer can still sing the rhyme using different areas of the brain, but simply can't overcome a series of stammers when trying to merely recite it. Of course, it's not all mad scientist applications: the UK team experimenting with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) thinks it can help us understand and treat migraines (as we've seen before with the Migraine Zapper), depression, and ADHD, among other ailments. But improving physical well-being doesn't make for nearly as entertaining media -- see the British inflict some involuntary quiet time in the video above.