Ship of Fools: Fake soldiers

Thread: Fake soldiers Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028811

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

There has been a bit of a kerfuffle in Canada over this guy, who went to a Rememberance Day ceremony dressed up as a soldier, and duped some reporters into interviewing him as such.

Personally, I find the outrage about this a little overdone, and had to chuckle at the use of the word "scandal".

I'd be willing to bet that most of us have met the kind of person who, in lieu of having an actual life, sits in the bar getting drunk and telling BS stories about himself, often related to an alleged career in military, police, etc. I always just saw them as a laughingstock, not a social problem. Though there are apparently enough people who view them as the latter that an organization has actually been started to curtail their nefarious falshoods.

There is apparently a law in Canada against impersonating a soldier, though I really think that the intended target would be a guy who dresses up in green fatigues and walks into corner-stores telling the clerks he's authorized to confiscate the contents of their cash register(for example) rather than just losers going around lying about how cool their lives supposedly are.

Finally, it's hard to separate the public outrage from the context of the "mini-9/11" that Canada has been going through in the wake of the Quebec and Ottawa shootings. Viewing it against that background kinda confirms my view that what we're seeing is an overreation

[ 15. November 2014, 17:40: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Or a distraction.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

A laughingstock they may be but they piss off real soldiers no end. They are usually referred to a 'Walts' after Walter Mitty and it's also possible for them to be or have been soldiers: anyone claiming to have served in the special forces (SAS, Seals, but even the Marines and Parachute Regiment) is usually suspected of having served at something as dangerous as a stores depot. After all, many who served in the special aren't inclined to talk about it, while some of them can't.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Fakes like that crop up in Australia from time to time as well.

As Doctor Johnson said, "Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having gone to sea".

I spent an inglorious stint of eighteen months in the army as a medic 1972-3 under the then National Service scheme, but never went overseas, and never saw combat, which is why I have neither claimed the National Service medal nor marched on Anzac Day, to both of which I am entitled simply by virtue of having done my time.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Government to punish fake soldier by treating him like a real veteran

quote:
...have decided the imposter’s punishment should be to endure the poor treatment they inflict on a real Canadian veteran....this man clearly had some sort of mental illness, so we should cut off any treatment that he receives too

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Sino Sais wrote:

quote:
anyone claiming to have served in the special forces (SAS, Seals, but even the Marines and Parachute Regiment) is usually suspected of having served at something as dangerous as a stores depot

Heh. Thanks for confirming my observation that it's "special forces" that is the preferred mode of claimed service for the bar-room BSers.

quote:
A laughingstock they may be but they piss off real soldiers no end.

I guess I have mixed thoughts about that. Far be it for me to tell veterans how to feel, but I would hope that, if I were a veteran, the fact that some idiot was going around claiming to have done the same things that I had done would not diminish my own sense of pride in those actions. At the end of the day, you should know who you are and what you've accomplished.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Government to punish fake soldier by treating him like a real veteran

quote:
...have decided the imposter’s punishment should be to endure the poor treatment they inflict on a real Canadian veteran....this man clearly had some sort of mental illness, so we should cut off any treatment that he receives too

I like it, especially the reference to the War Of 1812 re-enactments at the end.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
A laughingstock they may be but they piss off real soldiers no end.

This reminds me of a retired Army man in our village who was enraged by the BBC production of The Monocled Mutineer .
It was based on the real story of Britain's most wanted man Percy Toplis who, in WW1, paraded as an Officer when in fact he was only ever a Private. The complaint was down to Toplis being portrayed as a likeable hero who made the establishment look silly.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Sino Sais wrote:

quote:
A laughingstock they may be but they piss off real soldiers no end.
I guess I have mixed thoughts about that. Far be it for me to tell veterans how to feel, but I would hope that, if I were a veteran, the fact that some idiot was going around claiming to have done the same things that I had done would not diminish my own sense of pride in those actions. At the end of the day, you should know who you are and what you've accomplished.

Veterans and serving soldiers wouldn't object so much if the Walts weren't exactly the people you dread meeting in a bar or pub. We all have some backstory, but these guys have it in spades, doubled, and oh boy, you are going to listen to it.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Sino wrote:

quote:
Veterans and serving soldiers wouldn't object so much if the Walts weren't exactly the people you dread meeting in a bar or pub. We all have some backstory, but these guys have it in spades, doubled, and oh boy, you are going to listen to it.

When you say "these guys" do you mean the vets, or the BSers?

In any case, as far as legal sanction goes, I don't really think it's the government's duty to protect the sensibilities of veterans, however obnoxious the fakers may be.

From the looks of it, the guy in Canada isn'y gonna be charged, which is good. I'd wager that his days of impersonating a soldier, at least in front of the cameras.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant the BSers. It's true that some vets are tiresome, but there's often a reason for that.

eta: I don't think the government should stand back from defending the veterans point of view, as the government defined their job, and also I think it dangerous to leave matter entirely this to former soldiers.

[ 15. November 2014, 23:29: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Sino:

Thanks for the clarification.

quote:
eta: I don't think the government should stand back from defending the veterans point of view

Well, my main issue is that, insofar as we are talking about having the legal system go after the fakers, it essentially amounts to regulating personal expression. I don't think the state should be intervening to that extent in people's lives.

Maybe there could be restrictions on civilians fraudulently wearing military uniforms, as Gervais did, but even there, I'd prefer to see the crackdown on the other end. If military garb is so sacred, how is it that these items managed to get into public circulation to begin with?

I used to work for a well-known non-profit, which sometimes had convicted lawbreakers doing community service, under court-order. Occassionally, they were given "Volunteer" shirts to wear, until one of the higher-ups objected that it's a bit of an insult to the people who were doing real, altrusitic volunteer work.

I respected the managers objections. But I don't think he'd have much cause to complain if the agency's "Volunteer" shirts were being sold at thrift shops, and guys were buying them to impress chicks with how humanitarian they are.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Apparently, I spoke too soon above. He is being charged.

According to the article, soldiers are allowed to sell their insignia. Which, again, kinda makes all the hand-wringing over fake use of the insignias a little absurd.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Sioni Sais:
anyone claiming to have served in the special forces (SAS, Seals, but even the Marines and Parachute Regiment)

Fakers in the UK should go for Royal Marines. SAS is too obvious. In the US, go with one of the Air Force special forces units. I don't know about the UK but the US has too many paratroopers for it to be that big a deal. Canadian fakers only have the JTF2 option.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

This person was not a re ennactor but acted as if he had served & wore medals he was never awarded . In Canada this is against the law . He has been charged . What tipped off? The way he wore the beret , I wore one as a cadet long a go
and if I'd worn mine the way he wore his I would have been for a lecture .
Moral of all this ? If you didn't serve don't wear any part of a uniform.
To those who serve & have served and the families of the fallen thank you for your service Bravo Zulu.

[ 16. November 2014, 01:16: Message edited by: PaulBC ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Paul wrote:

quote:
Moral of all this ? If you didn't serve don't wear any part of a uniform.

I would think another moral would be that vets ought not to be auctioning off their medals to the highest bidder on e-bay. Such transactions really do undermine the notion that misuse of the medals is a gross insult to veterans.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Fakers aren't the only ones interested in purchasing military medals.

Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :

Legal position in Australia - it is unlawful for non-ADF members to wear military uniform without good reason (e.g. actor in a play is fine). It is also unlawful to wear medals you are not entitled to wear. This does not apply to wearing a deceased relative's medals, so long as they are worn on the right side (your own medals are worn on the left side).

Do these things matter? Obviously, there are security issues related to impersonating a Defence member, and also chances of fraud. But as the Canadian case shows (and similar cases in Australia) there is a far deeper and more emotional reaction that takes place.

This I can understand a little bit - I had an undistinguished but honourable military career, finishing up as a Medical Corps Officer in an administrative role, and service overseas in a peacekeeping force in a related role with the police. Not exactly glorious, but my medals were honestly earned over many years of service, and I get lined up in Anzac Day with veterans who actually did brave things. And my experience of overseas service is that you do come back different, you have experienced something that is hard to share or relate with those who have not been there.

So there is something deeply emotional here. People who have served view false claimants as cheats and frauds. I can sense that, understand it, feel it, but still can't quite give it an intellectual framework. Over to you shipmates for further illumination!

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Beeswax wrote:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Fakers aren't the only ones interested in purchasing military medals.

No, but the fact that there are recipients willing to auction them off for cash calls into question the notion that the medals are held in high esteem by veterans.

Basically, if the military is so worried about misuse of medals, they should launch a campaign to convince veterans of the merits of holding onto them. Rather than prosecuting a guy for wearing items that he has obtained in a fully lawful manner.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I still remain puzzled how or why anyone should be shocked at the public or official reaction to what this man has done. One would imagine that in every country it is an offence to impersonate being a member of the armed forces or the police. What this man did is not on. Whatever his motive, neither he nor we can complain of the state throws the book at him.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

B.G. Burkett wrote a book ten years ago about how people falsely claiming to be Vietnam combat veterans made life much more difficult for those who really were.

The worst problem was men convicted of serious crimes who told the judge at their sentencing that their Vietnam experiences messed them up so much that committing crimes was a natural response. Stories of this type became so widespread that people, including potential employers, assumed that all Vietnam vets were unstable.

What Burkett did in his book was to start with US Army records showing who served where and when. Many of the criminals who claimed to be Vietnam veterans were never in the military or did not serve in Asia. The men who actually had been on the front lines in Vietnam had fewer criminal convictions and a lower rate of homelessness than men who had stayed in the US or been deployed in Europe.

Not surprisingly, many of the combat veterans he spoke to were quite bitter.

Moo

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Enoch wrote:

quote:
One would imagine that in every country it is an offence to impersonate being a member of the armed forces or the police.

Well, maybe it is, but that doesn't mean that it SHOULD be. Again, my own view is that it should be a crime to impersonate cops or soldiers in the line of duty, especially if you're using the persona to pull off some fraud, eg. my example of someone seizing money from a store.

Other than that, I really don't think I want the state in the business of arresting every bozo who tries to pick up women in bars by talking about his BS Desert Storm exploits and flashing around a few second-hand medals he bought at a pawn shop.

Especially not when the stated rationale is the offense given to the feelings of veterans. I'd imagine heart surgeons are pretty proud of their work as well; should it thus be illegal for a layman to tell people, in a social conversation, that he is a heart-surgeon?

And, again, if the army is so worried about the mis-use of medals, let's see them launch a campaign against the selling of medals by vets themselves. Maybe take out ads in the Legion magazines, with a picture of Mr. Gervais in his regalia, with a caption: IF YOU SELL YOUR MEDALS, YOU'RE NO BETTER THAN THIS GUY.

But I think we'll be waiting a while for that, because it would involve the military and/or the Legion having to shame its own members into taking responsibility for their own actions.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Moo wrote:

quote:
B.G. Burkett wrote a book ten years ago about how people falsely claiming to be Vietnam combat veterans made life much more difficult for those who really were.

The worst problem was men convicted of serious crimes who told the judge at their sentencing that their Vietnam experiences messed them up so much that committing crimes was a natural response. Stories of this type became so widespread that people, including potential employers, assumed that all Vietnam vets were unstable.

Yes, I'm sure that would make life difficult for Vietnam veterans, and, if the lying is done under oath in court, constitute perjury as well.

But, by the same token, falsely claiming to be a member of ANY group, in order to rationalize your bad behaviour, can make life difficult for members of that group. A criminal defendant who lies to a judge about having been sexually abused as a child is making sex-abuse victims look bad. Doesn't mean that we should be arresting people who make up fake stories about being sexually abused as some twisted ploy for sympathy. (If they name specific, living people as their abusers, especially in legal proceedings, that's a different story).

And anyway, I'd say movies like Taxi Driver and First Blood did at least as much as BSing Walts to perpetuate the image of the crazed Vietnam vet. I don't think there is much we can do about that legally, though.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
A laughingstock they may be but they piss off real soldiers no end.
I guess I have mixed thoughts about that. Far be it for me to tell veterans how to feel, but I would hope that, if I were a veteran, the fact that some idiot was going around claiming to have done the same things that I had done would not diminish my own sense of pride in those actions. At the end of the day, you should know who you are and what you've accomplished.

Apparently you would not be alone on that one (mind you, consider the source).

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

I really don't think I want the state in the business of arresting every bozo who tries to pick up women in bars by talking about his BS Desert Storm exploits and flashing around a few second-hand medals he bought at a pawn shop.

Especially not when the stated rationale is the offense given to the feelings of veterans. I'd imagine heart surgeons are pretty proud of their work as well; should it thus be illegal for a layman to tell people, in a social conversation, that he is a heart-surgeon?

I expect the state takes the view it does because of the risks that combatants take when serving the state. The worst that can happen to a heart surgeon must be that the patient dies, which while distressing, isn't the same as being shot at.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

That book looks interesting. But, like much of the rest of the commentary around this issue, it sounds like it might be engaged in a bit of blame-deflection.

The write-up says that some of these Travis Bickel wannabes have "fooled the most asture prosecitors." Now, it's possible that I'm too much a child of the computer age, and assume that any information can be obtained with a mouse click, but...

How difficult would it be for a prosecutor to ascertain whether or not the defendant in a court room really served in Vietnam or not? Would that not be reocrded somewhere?

And that goes double for the "award-winning" documentarians who apparently got duped as well. Aren't journalists trained to check sources?

Anyway, I'm now having a chuckle remembering the Nick Nolte character in Tropic Thunder.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Sioni wrote:

quote:
I expect the state takes the view it does because of the risks that combatants take when serving the state. The worst that can happen to a heart surgeon must be that the patient dies, which while distressing, isn't the same as being shot at.

So, if I risk my life to serve the state, then the state should make it illegal to say or do things that insult my feeling of pride around that service? That could have some interesting consequences.

"Hey, soldier, did you have a good time being a tool of the capitalist pig warmongers over in Iraq?"

I guess the guy saying that could be arrested.

[ 16. November 2014, 17:56: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Sioni wrote:

quote:
I expect the state takes the view it does because of the risks that combatants take when serving the state. The worst that can happen to a heart surgeon must be that the patient dies, which while distressing, isn't the same as being shot at.
So, if I risk my life to serve the state, then the state should make it illegal to say or do things that insult my feeling of pride around that service? That could have some interesting consequences.

"Hey, soldier, did you have a good time being a tool of the capitalist pig warmongers over in Iraq?"

I guess the guy saying that could be arrested.

Thanks for extending the scope of my post so far as to remove it from its original context. If there's an award for that, I'll be sure to nominate you.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Sioni wrote:

quote:
I expect the state takes the view it does because of the risks that combatants take when serving the state. The worst that can happen to a heart surgeon must be that the patient dies, which while distressing, isn't the same as being shot at.
So, if I risk my life to serve the state, then the state should make it illegal to say or do things that insult my feeling of pride around that service? That could have some interesting consequences.

"Hey, soldier, did you have a good time being a tool of the capitalist pig warmongers over in Iraq?"

I guess the guy saying that could be arrested.
Thanks for extending the scope of my post so far as to remove it from its original context. If there's an award for that, I'll be sure to nominate you.

I'm not sure how much the scope has been extended.

In both instances(the pick-up artist and the pacifist heckler) someone who risked his life in the service of his country is having his feelings about that service insulted by the words or actions of someone else. Whether it's by false claims of similar service, or derogatory remarks about that service, in both cases he's probably gonna feel pretty bad.

So, if you're gonna say that we need to legally protect his feelings in the case of the imposter, I'm not sure we shouldn't extend that protection to the case of the heckler.

Oh, and if you're looking for a prize to nominate me for, I guess it would be whatever they hand out for Ad Absurdum arguments. It's often confused with the Slippery Slope, but it's different, being a legitimate argument, not a fallacy.

[ 16. November 2014, 18:34: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I think that, when recipients of US military medals sell them, it's mostly likely because they need the money. The US gov't treats vets shamefully.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
That book looks interesting. But, like much of the rest of the commentary around this issue, it sounds like it might be engaged in a bit of blame-deflection.

The write-up says that some of these Travis Bickel wannabes have "fooled the most asture prosecitors." Now, it's possible that I'm too much a child of the computer age, and assume that any information can be obtained with a mouse click, but...

How difficult would it be for a prosecutor to ascertain whether or not the defendant in a court room really served in Vietnam or not? Would that not be reocrded somewhere?

And that goes double for the "award-winning" documentarians who apparently got duped as well. Aren't journalists trained to check sources?

The book was published at least ten years ago. Here is a quote from the site.

quote:
B.G. Burkett, in over ten years of research in the National Archives, filing thousands of requests for military documents under the Freedom of Information Act, uncovered a massive distortion of history. This distortion cost the U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars. Mr. Burkett's work has toppled national political leaders and put criminals in jail.

The authors show killers who have fooled the most astute prosecutors and gotten away with murder, phony heroes who have become the object of award-winning documentaries on national network television, and liars and fabricators who have flooded major publishing houses with false tales of heroism which have become best-selling biographies.

The site says that the author gained access to military documents by demanding them under the Freedom of Information Act. I can't see most prosecutors bothering; in any case, it takes a very long time to access documents under FOIA. I can't see a prosecutor asking the judge to postpone sentencing until permission to examine the necessary documents has been obtained and the documents scrutinized.

Moreover, many of these cases happened in the 1970s and 1980s when information was not so widely available.

quote:
That book looks interesting. But, like much of the rest of the commentary around this issue, it sounds like it might be engaged in a bit of blame-deflection.

Who was the blame being deflected from?

Moo

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

There have been many cases where medals , as high as the VC have been sold because the recipiant needed the money .That is not wrong.
What is wrong is wearing medals you did not earn, uniform that your did not serve in , claiming to someone you are not .

Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :

In Australia I think you are not allowed to sell your own medals - indeed, if you are bankrupt, it is one thing that cannot be sold to satisfy your creditors. As far as I know, most medals on the market come from deceased estates.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

The US Congress passed a law in 2005, the Stolen Valor Act, that made it a federal crime to falsely claim to have received a military medal or award. In 2012 the Supreme Court ruled it an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech and overturned it. It is, however, still illegal to dress in military uniform and/or medals if one has not served. And I do remember reading somewhere that it's also illegal for military members to sell their uniforms and medals, so it goes both ways.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The US Congress passed a law in 2005, the Stolen Valor Act, that made it a federal crime to falsely claim to have received a military medal or award. In 2012 the Supreme Court ruled it an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech and overturned it. It is, however, still illegal to dress in military uniform and/or medals if one has not served. And I do remember reading somewhere that it's also illegal for military members to sell their uniforms and medals, so it goes both ways.

What a magnificent name for what is really a very grubby little crime.

How extraordinary also that somebody should challenge this, take it to the Supreme Court, and what is more, be successful. Presumably taking a case up through all those levels of the judicial hierarchy is pretty expensive. One would have thought that most people would be ashamed to be seen putting all that money, time and effort into claiming the right to do something that most of the rest of us would regard as either offensive or a mark of being delusionary.

It's also a pretty odd interpretation of 'free speech'.

As is often said, 'there's nowt so queer as folks'.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

The man whose case ended up in the Supreme Court was apparently a total fantasist.

quote:
Meet Xavier Alvarez. He stated that he played hockey for the Detroit Red Wings,
served as a police officer and even married a Mexican starlet. Then on July 23, 2007, Alvarez attended his first public meeting as a newly elected director of the Three Valley Water District Board in Claremont, California. He introduced himself as a retired marine for twenty-five years and a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Hon

Jurist.org

I agree with the Supreme Court's decision - as the law was written it violated people's rights to lie when there is no intent of harm or gain.

There's a new draft law in the works, with the same wonderful name, that will limit the punishment to those who lie to get veteran benefits or commit fraud.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Moo wrote:

quote:
Who was the blame being deflected from?

Moo

The "astute prosecutors" and "award-winning" journalists who apparently neglected to confirm the simple facts upon which they were basing their assumprions.

I take the point about access-ro-information laws, though I will read into the record that the Canadian Department Of Defense was able to "confirm" within a few days that Gervais was a fake. Not sure what the difference would be between Canada and the US, especailly given the much vaunted "access to information" in the latter.

And I'd still hold the journalists' feet pretty firmly to the fire, since they are at more liberty than the prosecutors about how quickly to proceed with their work.

Enoch wrote:

quote:
It's also a pretty odd interpretation of 'free speech'.

I'm not sure why that would be odd. Giving out biographical details of yourself surely qualifies as a form of speech. And, except in cases involving fraud or other criminal activities, the law does not usually concern itself with the prevention of lying. So, bar-stool blowhards should arguably have the same right to delusional expression as anyone else.

Seeking wrote:

quote:
I agree with the Supreme Court's decision

As do I. But then, I'm pretty close to being an absolutist when it comes to free-speech issues.

[ 17. November 2014, 17:13: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Sioni Sais

quote:
...anyone claiming to have served in the special forces (SAS, Seals, but even the Marines and Parachute Regiment) is usually suspected of having served at something as dangerous as a stores depot.

Or as the little lizard said, "I'm a Tyrannosaurus rex on my mother's side". (swiped from Robert Heinlein)

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

My only acquaintances with genuine claims to valour described their service as training technician (Afghanistan), paperwork (DFC with bar, Belgian Order of the Lion, and the French mérite militaire), and "stuff in the countryside" (Red Army partisan in the Ruthenian forests, with Nakhimov and Partisan medals).

A TEC clerical acqquaintance using a CoE rectory on a holiday exchange, found himself about 10 years ago required to say a requiem for a particularly crabby old lady in the choir, and as he walked into the church found her a cushion on her coffin with a series of French decorations, and two representatives of the French army in attendance. The "old bat" (as other parishioners denominated her) had apparently served as a liaison and courier with the Maquis and the French, credit to them, had not forgotten. The organist, equally astonished, had sufficient presence of mind to turn the Marseillaise into the recessional at very slow time as the coffin was taken out.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The man whose case ended up in the Supreme Court was apparently a total fantasist.

quote:
Meet Xavier Alvarez. He stated that he played hockey for the Detroit Red Wings,
served as a police officer and even married a Mexican starlet. Then on July 23, 2007, Alvarez attended his first public meeting as a newly elected director of the Three Valley Water District Board in Claremont, California. He introduced himself as a retired marine for twenty-five years and a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Hon
Jurist.org

I agree with the Supreme Court's decision - as the law was written it violated people's rights to lie when there is no intent of harm or gain.

There's a new draft law in the works, with the same wonderful name, that will limit the punishment to those who lie to get veteran benefits or commit fraud.

It must be one of those cross-cultural disjuncts, like Kinder-eggs, or the bizarre fact that here you can't buy more than so-many aspirins at once, but it does seem very odd that the Constitution should intervene to protect a liar from getting his comeuppance. Apart from sledgehammers and nuts, it does look like the misuse of one's national Constitution to be able to call on it to claim an inalienable right to tell lies with impunity.

Unless I've completely misunderstood the story, this man seems to have told these lies to get himself either elected or appointed to a public office. He does seem to have been able to use the Constitution to secure the perpetration of an injustice in his own favour.

He may have extricated himself from the criminal charge but I assume he's now regarded in Claremont, California as a figure of embarrassment and shame, a person of ill-repute.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The US Congress passed a law in 2005, the Stolen Valor Act, that made it a federal crime to falsely claim to have received a military medal or award. In 2012 the Supreme Court ruled it an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech and overturned it.
What a magnificent name for what is really a very grubby little crime.

The Stolen Valor Act was named after the book Stolen Valor which I have been citing.

I read it more than ten years ago, so I don't remember a lot of details, but the author told of many cases where men claimed to be traumatized Vietnam vets in order to defraud or to escape punishment for crimes they had committed. The author was very indignant and so were many of the people who read the book.

I think that people who falsely claim a military record to impress friends or acquaintances are very unattractive individuals, but if they are just trying to impress someone, it's not a serious matter. This is certainly not the type of situation which led to passage of the Stolen Valor Act.

Moo

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
He may have extricated himself from the criminal charge but I assume he's now regarded in Claremont, California as a figure of embarrassment and shame, a person of ill-repute.

And maybe both parts of that sentence are a desirable outcome?

In general, I don't think bragging on the campaign trail is treated the same way as lying on a tax form on which you have affixed your signature, or testifying under oath in court.

Gotta go to work. Killing enemy guerillas. More later, if I survive.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... it does seem very odd that the Constitution should intervene to protect a liar from getting his comeuppance. Apart from sledgehammers and nuts, it does look like the misuse of one's national Constitution to be able to call on it to claim an inalienable right to tell lies with impunity.

Well, yeah, it makes us cranky that assholes hide behind the Constitution too, but we've basically decided that since we've got to err, we'll do it on the side of protecting those who really need it plus the random assholes we can't filter out (rather than omitting the assholes but also failing to cover some who need it). And a lot of times you can catch the assholes out with some other point of law--for example, fraud.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Apart from sledgehammers and nuts, it does look like the misuse of one's national Constitution to be able to call on it to claim an inalienable right to tell lies with impunity.

Sir Thomas More, in "A Man for All Seasons":

quote:
Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
How extraordinary also that somebody should challenge this, take it to the Supreme Court, and what is more, be successful. Presumably taking a case up through all those levels of the judicial hierarchy is pretty expensive. One would have thought that most people would be ashamed to be seen putting all that money, time and effort into claiming the right to do something that most of the rest of us would regard as either offensive or a mark of being delusionary.

I suspect that it is less likely to have been a disinterested libertarian determined to secure the inalienable right of freeborn Americans to tell fibs about their military service and more likely to have been one of said fibbers who had found himself on the pointy end of the relevant legislation.

Colonel S. Callan (ret'd.)
V.C. D.S.O

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
How extraordinary also that somebody should challenge this, take it to the Supreme Court, and what is more, be successful. Presumably taking a case up through all those levels of the judicial hierarchy is pretty expensive. One would have thought that most people would be ashamed to be seen putting all that money, time and effort into claiming the right to do something that most of the rest of us would regard as either offensive or a mark of being delusionary.
I suspect that it is less likely to have been a disinterested libertarian determined to secure the inalienable right of freeborn Americans to tell fibs about their military service and more likely to have been one of said fibbers who had found himself on the pointy end of the relevant legislation.

Colonel S. Callan (ret'd.)
V.C. D.S.O

Accorsing to wikipedia, it was the government, acting in defense of the Stolen Valor Act, which made the decision to go all the way to the SCOTUS, after they had lost at the Ninth Circuit.

Posted by Chap (# 4926) on :

I have now been serving for a little over 29 years and have accumulated a few medals and badges along the way. Only two are truly important to me. They are the Cross I have as a chaplain and the Master Parachutist badge from more than a few years and a lot of work as a paratrooper in an airborne assignment.

Over those same years I have met a lot of phonies. Mostly I just find them sad/pathetic as they obviously have never done anything of significant value/lasting importance so they lie.

What upsets me is when they lie to gain some advantage - politicians in the polls, business owners trying to sell to the vet market, or those trying to scam others who want to give to vets to name a few things making the news recently.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
According to wikipedia, it was the government, acting in defense of the Stolen Valor Act, which made the decision to go all the way to the SCOTUS, after they had lost at the Ninth Circuit.

Tangent query

So can any old court find that a particular piece of legislation is unconstitutional and so void? Without, I must admit, having ever thought of the question before, I would somehow have assumed that if you want to argue that a piece of legislation was completely dud, you'd have to take you case up through all the levels because only the Supreme Court had the power to say that.

And if that's not the case, and some menial court throws out a piece of legislation, does that more or less oblige the government's legal department to refer this to the Supreme Court, come what may?

Also, it sounds as though the way this works is that if a part of some legislation could apply to an odd set of circumstances in a way that might infringe the Constitution, the whole lot falls, kaput, even the laudable parts. The legislation isn't applied in a way that assumes it wasn't intended to be unconstitutional. Is that right?

I'm asking out of curiosity. We haven't got anything similar here. Our legal system deals with these sort of conflicts in a quite different way. I still find it very odd that a jerk can invoke the Constitution to get out of the entirely proper consequences of telling lies. I can see that one might argue that what he did shouldn't have been made an offence, but I can't see the rationale of the argument that it cannot, as a matter of fundamental principle, be an offence.

I suppose also, that to me, freedom of speech means the right to express any opinion, however undesirable, and to a considerable extent (more than is currently accepted), the right to do so rudely and offensively. It doesn't, though, include the right to tell complete porkies in one's own favour. That isn't a right that any principle should be defending, and if it is doing, that is in danger of bringing the principle into disrepute.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Enoch wrote:

quote:
So can any old court find that a particular piece of legislation is unconstitutional and so void? Without, I must admit, having ever thought of the question before, I would somehow have assumed that if you want to argue that a piece of legislation was completely dud, you'd have to take you case up through all the levels because only the Supreme Court had the power to say that.

It would appear that, in the US at least, a district judge can rule a law unconstitutional.

Mind you, that was a FEDERAL judge, ruling on a state law. I'm not sure what status a US judge would need to knock down a federal law.

In Canada(which has US-style judicial review) there was a lot of public outrage in the 90s when the BC Supreme Court(basically the equivalent to a US circuit court) ruled that ruled that the child-pornography laws infringed on the right to free expression. But I don't recall that that led to Canada being flooded with child-pornography. I think(someone can correct me) that the government can take steps to have the law remain in force while the appeals process is underway.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Enoch wrote:

quote:
I suppose also, that to me, freedom of speech means the right to express any opinion, however undesirable, and to a considerable extent (more than is currently accepted), the right to do so rudely and offensively. It doesn't, though, include the right to tell complete porkies in one's own favour. That isn't a right that any principle should be defending, and if it is doing, that is in danger of bringing the principle into disrepute.

Neither the US Bill Of Rights nor the Canadian Charter specify that it is only opinions that are protected.

That said, I will agree that there might be a greater urgency in protecting opinions than in protecting rank lying. The argument was made that if Larry Flynt were not allowed to joke about Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother in an outhouse, more cereberal humourists might be prevented from saying that Senator Whoever plays piano in a brothel.

In other words, you protect the crappy examples of political humour in order to ensure the good ones enjoy the same protection. But, as far as recreational lying goes, there really ARE no good examples. We'd all probably be better off in NONE of it were allowed.

Now, THAT being said, outlawing bar-room BS still seems like a pretty draconian incursion into into the private sphere. At the end of the day, if someone wants to tell whoppers to his drinking buddies, and his buddies are gullible enough to believe it, well, it's probably nobody's business but theirs.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Stetson writes:

quote:
I think(someone can correct me) that the government can take steps to have the law remain in force while the appeals process is underway.

I recall that one Supreme Court (of Canada) ruling included a provision that a law would continue in force for a year so that the Government could devise and Parliament pass remedial legislation.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
... That said, I will agree that there might be a greater urgency in protecting opinions than in protecting rank lying. The argument was made that if Larry Flynt were not allowed to joke about Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother in an outhouse, more cereberal humourists might be prevented from saying that Senator Whoever plays piano in a brothel ...

Both of those, unless true, would be highly defamatory and enable the person defamed to collect lots of lolly. Although there is room for different options on where the boundaries of defamation should fall, I can't imagine that with those two examples, anyone would disagree with that.

You can't, however, defame yourself. Besides, it isn't defamatory to say of someone else that they have a distinguished military record.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Enoch wrote:

quote:
Both of those, unless true, would be highly defamatory and enable the person defamed to collect lots of lolly. Although there is room for different options on where the boundaries of defamation should fall, I can't imagine that with those two examples, anyone would disagree with that.

I think you should review the history on the Falwell case. The short version...

Hustler magazine published a joke article, in which Jerry Falwell was quoted as saying that he lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse.

Falwell sued Larry Flynt, the publisher. The jury ruled that no libel had taken place, because the parody was too ridiculous to be believed, and anyway it contained a disclaimer.

However, the jury awarded Falwell money for "emotional damages". Even though he wasn't libelled, just seeing himself joked about that way in a magazine would cause him mental distress.

Flynt appealed all the way to the SCOTUS, and won, the judges ruling that you couldn't collect money for emotional distress. In the arguments, Flynt's lawyer used a cartoon portraying a politician as a piano-player in a whorehouse as something that could be actionable if the "emotional distress" argument were upheld. I think the image was meant to symbolize someone who looks the other way while corruption takes place all around him.

In neither the Hustler cartoon not the lawyer's hypothetical was the poltiician alleged to actually be doing the things portrayed. They were both supposed to be understood as fictional.

Hustler Magazine Vs. Falwell

Contains the ad in question.

[ 20. November 2014, 15:15: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I can't quite see why 'should' is the word. Obviously I've never heard of this case and these people are as good as unknown here. It's difficult to follow the background. It's odd and it isn't actually that interesting.

Besides, the core of the defence in that case seems to have been that what would normally have been defamatory, wasn't because it was so obviously unbelievable that it ceased to be capable of diminishing the victim's reputation. At the core of Mr Alvarez's actions was that he intended people would be taken in by his lies.

Going back to the OP, though, this was about a Canadian man pretending in Canada to be a Canadian soldier. So a case about where the limits of political satire should fall in a different country isn't really relevant.

On the other examples that you cite, is it really still the case that having child pornography in one's possession is still regarded as a right protected by doctrines about freedom of expression? Is there anyone knowledgeable about Canadian law who can answer that one for Canada? If so, we really are dealing with yet another example of a cross-cultural disjunct which illustrates a blank incomprehension between the assumptions people make in one part of the world and another.

[ 20. November 2014, 18:06: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
I can't quite see why 'should' is the word.

Well, just because you seemed to misunderstand the outcome of the case, when you said "I can't imagine... that anyone would disagree with that."

quote:
Besides, the core of the defence in that case seems to have been that what would normally have been defamatory, wasn't because it was so obviously unbelievable that it ceased to be capable of diminishing the victim's reputation. At the core of Mr Alvarez's actions was that he intended people would be taken in by his lies.

Well, actually, I agree with that. And if you go back, you'll see that I originally brought the Falwell case into the discussion in PARTIAL agreement with my worthy adversaries, ie. while I can see a strong point in favour of defending deeply insulting political jokes(Falwell's mother being an example), it is a bit harder to see the rationale for defending a right to recreational or avaricious lying. Though my final view was that the right should be protected.

quote:
On the other examples that you cite, is it really still the case that having child pornography in one's possession is still regarded as a right protected by doctrines about freedom of expression?

No, because the SCOC overruled the lower court in that case, holding that while the laws against child-porn did violate the right to free expression, that violation was justified by considerations of protecting children.

But it was a somewhat compliacated decision, and I myself don't quite understand all the details of the final result. You can read about it at the link. Suffice to say that anyone making or possessing pornography featuring photos of actual childten is still going to face some pretty serious penalties in Canada. And that's more than fine with me.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0