When I saw the headline, I thought you’ve got to be kidding me. This can’t be correct. This seems blatantly wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. But the headline isn’t an error. Here’s the Associated Press’ headline:
Court: Wearing Unearned Military Medals Is Free Speech
And apparently (and most appalling to me) this court decision about wearing unearned military medals is in line with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 2012.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision allows anyone to wear a Purple Heart.
In January, a specially convened 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the First Amendment allows people to wear unearned military medals, according this Associated Press article.
This decision overturned the 2007 conviction of former Marine Elven Joe Swisher. Swisher was convicted of violating the Stolen Valor Act.
Don’t remember the Stolen Valor Act?
The Stolen Valor Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005. This law made it a federal misdemeanor to falsely represent oneself as having received any military decoration. You know, a decision that makes sense and honors our veterans.
Then in 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court deemed the act unconstitutional under First Amendment free speech protections in the case United States v. Alvarez. Alvarez falsely claimed he was a retired Marine who had received the Congressional Medal of Honor. Alvarez never served in the military so obviously he didn’t earn any military medals.
“Though few might find (Alvarez’s) statements anything but contemptible, his right to make those statements is protected by the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech and expression,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. He wrote that the First Amendment
“protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace.”
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, Congress revised the Stolen Valor Act making it a crime to “financially profit by lying about military service.” President Barack Obama signed the revised Stolen Valor Act into law in 2013.
A Christian Science Monitor article explains the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision like this:
“…Swisher’s case overturns a prominent provision of the 2013 Act, legally allowing anyone to wear a Purple Heart.”
Anyone? Yup, anyone. You, me, that guy down the street, that woman in the parking lot. Anyone.
That idea is insulting.
But there’s more.
“The value of a military medal lies not in the materials of which it is comprised, but in its message,” 9th Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote in the majority opinion. “Wearing a medal without authorization, therefore, generally communicates the false message that the wearer is entitled to such recognition and gratitude…. Wearing a medal has no other purpose other than to communicate a message.”
Those last 3 words irritate me – “Communicate a message.”
Yes, a military medal does “communicate a message.” It communicates a personal sacrifice for our country. It communicates loyalty to the Armed Forces. A military medal communicates an action that went above and beyond the average actions of other soldiers, Marines, sailors or airmen.
Wearing military medals should be limited to those who earned them. Those soldiers, airmen, Marines and sailors are the ones who deserve to wear military medals.
Not Swisher.
This Idaho man was honorably discharged in 1957. Court documents showed that Swisher served in the military and that he didn’t receive any military medals.
Yet, he was photographed wearing a several military medals and awards, including the Silver Star, Navy and Marine Corps Ribbon, Purple Heart, and the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with a Bronze “V,” according to the Associated Press article.
When you wear unearned military medals, you are a liar.
And that’s the truth.
So if I am reading this right-it is ok to basically spit on the very people who defends this freedom of speech-well aren’t I glad I served a nation that thinks it is okay to downplay the sacrifice or besmirch the honor that once was held by one wearing these distinguished medals
Allowing a person to wear a medal he or she didn’t earn is a disgrace and a slap in the face to the many military persons who have honorably earned them.
Representing yourself for deeds not done……..is not a freedom of speech issue…its misrepresentation and shameful and of the lowest moral character of an individual.
It’s wrong.
Should not be allowed. Only earned
medals should be allowed. If this is OK and with that faulty reasoning, any one is free to wear any uniform, police military etc?……
Keep this in mind when comes election day. The Supreme court ruled this mess up with leftist leaning judges appointed by a Democratic Party President who is now attempting to make his illegal rules even more difficult to repeal by appointing a new left leaning Judge. Supposedly he was a professor of Constitutional law and it is clearly evidently apparent that he knows NOTHING of our Constitution and has no intentions of ever following it. Article III is the article that sets up the Supreme Court and no wheres does it give any numbers of judges who MUST be on the court. The numbers have been added essentially illegally by Congress over the years of our existence as a country for the purpose of political factions of winning over opponents to have their way. Our current President has but one desire and that is to see America taken down as a world leader so that equality rules making our country similar to all other immoral countries of the world.
You should NOT be allowed to wear medals you did not receive. You want to wear those medals then join one of the branches of the Military and earn it.
The Supreme Court makes decisions that it….IT…..deems as “lawful.” They most certainly do not make
decisions that are morally right. This is just one instance that proves that.
I feel that we should have a law that prohibits the sale and purchase of any military medals and have them buried with the veteran upon his/her demise. a dd214 framed real well should be sufficient for the children and family as a reminder of the service they did in defense of our great country.
As much as I disapprove of the act I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court. Freedom of speech is a major building block of our democracy. These decisions by the Supreme Court also included the burning of our flag and demonstration at the funerals of deceased soldiers; both actions I abhor. Unfortunately it falls under the title of free speech.
So if I understand the judge in this,mI can present myslef as a judge at any level, at any time and it is protected under the First Amendment. Perhaps the judge should have considered the ramifications of their judicial activism. Perhaps its ok to show up at his family’s haouse dressed as a police officer? Where does it end? Idiot liberal judges and the short sightedness of their thinking!
Think about it, this decision by the court is a very big part of what makes the United States the greatest country in the world. It is why many of the conservatives on the court agreed with the decision.
In 2005, the government decided that it would be making a certain kind of lying a Federal crime. The Supreme Court said, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES allows even the most obnoxious speech-you can even lie about being a heroic defender of our country.
As long as you do not defraud people, steal from them, you can be as despicable as you want to and only your fellow citizens (we can, and should, shun people who “steal valor”) can punish you. BUT not the GOVERNMENT.
It is very much like flag burning. I am so proud that we are one of the few countries in the world that is strong enough, proud enough of our own values that we can afford to allow and even protect these disgusting behaviors.
We are not Iran, or North Korea or even Great Britain. We are the United States of America and we even defend —holes! We swear to defend the people and Constitution of the United States. Think about the strength and valor of a people who are willing to do this and do it with patriotism and pride. As Service men and women shouldn’t this great strength be our badge of honor?
What if one day our government decides some other speech it doesn’t like, say political incorrectness is illegal? Isn’t this one of the things you are willing to risk your life for?