Stolen Valor Act

Why cant we try to admonish willful misrepresentations of f work by a modest fine, at least, if they hold direct legal injury to others? Lies to those evaluating your credentials may do direct harm to others. If one lies to gain a job, something which seems to happen with increasing frequency, isnt it a direct harm to others? Or, how about misguided representing as having true each credentials for something? The Stolen valiancy Act of 2005, signed into law by chair George W. Bush on December 20, 2006,1 was a U. S. law that broadened the provisions of preliminary U. S. aw addressing the unauthorized wear, manufacture, or sale of any military decorations and medals. The law make it a federal misdemeanor to falsely represent oneself as having received any U. S. military decoration or medal. If convicted, defendants might comport been confine for up to six months, unless the decoration lied about is the Medal of Honor, in which case imprisonment could own been up to one year (Wikipedia). I personally dont have any family members in the military, exclusively I see friends who are in the military and I know they would be highly offended if someone falsely represented themselves to be a member of the military.Those men and women who serve our country risk their lives and have put work into whatever credentials they have earned and it is a great disrespect for anyone to falsely give oneself credit for something they have non earned. The purpose of the Act was to strengthen the provisions of federal law by extend its scope and strengthening penalties. Specific new provisions in the Act included granting more authority to federal law enforcement officers broadening the law to cover false necessitates whereas previously an overt act had to be committed covering the mailing and shipping of medals and protecting the reputation and pith of military heroism medals. The Act made it illegal for unauthorized persons to wear, buy, sell, barter, trade, or manufa cture any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces. In the 18 months after the act was enacted, the Chicago Tribune estimated thither were twenty prosecutions. The number increased as awareness of the law public exposure (Wikipedia).The number of prosecutions continued to increase. Therefore, it was very clear that this was a tremendous end and that the Stolen Valor Act was serving its purpose. Unfortunately, the majority disagreed saying that at that place is no proof that lying about medals degrades the value and honor of those who have rattling earned those medals. Who could possibly agree to this? Well, government lawyers argued that lies about military medals are false statements that have no value and hence no graduation exercise Amendment protection.On Thursday September 13, 2012, the U. S. House of Representatives passed a new version of the Stolen Valor Act. The first version of the Stolen Valor Act was struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the First Amendment. The greenback focuses not on people who lie about having medals they didnt earn, exclusively on any profits they make from lying about the medals, which is essentially criminal fraud. Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nevada) sponsored the new bill. His office issued a release saying the bill passed by a vote of 410-3.Heck said in a floor voice communication that the bill would survive judicial review because it resolves the constitutional issues by clearly defining that the objective of the law is to target and punish those who misrepresent the allege service with the intent of profiting personally or financially. The bill targets those who falsely claim to have earned certain major military decorations, including the Medal of Honor, wonderful Service Cross, Navy Cross, Air Force Cross, Silver Star, Purple nubble or a medal signifying you served in combat (CNNPol itics).In 2007, at that place was a case against a man named Xavier Alvarez who was an elected member of the Three Valleys municipal Water District Board in Pomona, California. Alvarez said at a public water district board meeting that he was a retired Marine, had been wounded many times, and had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1987(NBCNews). However, he never served in the United States armed forces. Alvarez argued that his false statements were protected by the first Amendment right of free speech.Regardless, of his freedom of speech or anyones, no one should be giving the right to lie about something so serious especially, if it dishonors the men and women who serve for us and our country. I believe that there should be a law protecting military members against people exchangeable Alvarez. Unfortunately, the majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy said, The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society . He also quoted from the famous dissent by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1919 Abrams finding The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself authoritative in the competition of the market. Some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and snobbish conversation, expression the First Amendment seeks to guarantee (NBCNews). Kennedy might have a point, but I strongly disagree and believe it is unethical period.Moreover, the government shouldnt allow anyone to make false statements of any kind if it disrespects their country and their people. This act has definitely been a long debate for some of us with think arguments on both sides. In my view its unethical and it should have not been struck down by the Supreme Court. Yes, we live in a country with freedom of speech, but this has abused such exemption. So why not punish someone when theyve abused such privilege?