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.
没有评论:
发表评论