OK, this guy applied for benefits from the VA claiming PTSD. His application was denied for lack of corroborating evidence. So he fabricated a new DD-214 claiming a Purple Heart, Silver Star, Bronze Star with V and several other medals including the Marine Expeditionary Medal. The VA reversed itself and began paying him $2,366 a month in benefits. Later it was discovered that the DD-214 was fraudulent and the Marine had received no medals at all. The VA reversed itself again and demanded repayment. That was the basis of this case.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/6710+ ... f47768ad18
Still feel he didn't commit a crime by wearing the medals? Still feel it's free speech?
This is the legal "logic".
According to Justice Breyer, § 704(b) lacked these
narrowing features because it was not limited to a subset of
lies causing specific harm to identifiable victims, or to a
specific context where foreseeable harm to others is likely to
occur. Id. at 2555–56. Because “[f]alse factual statements
can serve useful human objectives” in a variety of contexts
and “the threat of criminal prosecution” could have a chilling
effect and could encourage or permit selective prosecution for
political ends, id. at 2553, Justice Breyer concluded that
§ 704(b) “risks significant First Amendment harm,” id. at
So apparently veterans who have earned medals are not "identifiable victims" of a fraudulent display of medals. And the "threat of criminal prosecution could have a chilling effect on people falsely wearing those medals.
Well, I disagree. There is most certainly an identifiable victim. It is all the veterans who have earned medals in the crucible of war, at extreme risk to their life and well being. And there is an identifiable harm. By falsely displaying medals, the value of those medals is reduced and the valor of those who earned them is clearly stolen. As it stands now you cannot impersonate a government official, but you can impersonate a decorated veteran til the cows come home. It stinks.
