9th Circuit: You can lie about earning a medal, but don’t wear it
We first wrote about David M. Perelman back in October 2009 when he was convicted of wearing a Purple Heart and convincing the Air Force that the wound in his leg that he inflicted on himself 20 years after his four-month stint in Vietnam was the result of VC shrapnel. The VA awarded him $180,000 in disability payments for his lie. But he’s been fighting the conviction with the appeals process ever since.
The Ninth Circuit shot down his appeal last year, but took another look at it Tuesday in light of the Supreme Court decision several weeks back, according to the Wall Street Journal;
A panel of judges in including Procter Hug Jr., Barry G. Silverman and Susan P. Graber said the provision of the law struck down by the Supreme Court criminalized pure speech, and thus was unconstitutional. But “the use of a physical object goes beyond mere speech and suggests that the wearer has proof of the lie, or government endorsement of it,” the panel ruled.
Mr. Perelman and his lawyers argued the law could make criminals of actors who wear military medals in movies, or grieving spouses who wear their loved ones’ medals to military funerals. But the panel interpreted the law to criminalize the unauthorized wearing of medals only when the wearer intends to deceive.
So, I guess the Stolen Valor Act wasn’t a total loss like we thought…and if the 9th Circuit says it, it must be true since they’re the ones who gave Alvarez a pass in the first place.
I wonder if they’d uphold a Stolen Valor conviction against our tattooed phony, Matthew Beck.
Category: Phony soldiers, Stolen Valor Act
Can’t tell if you are serious about that last question; but I see an obvious difference. A tattoo is something chosen and initiated by the bearer. Anybody can go out and get a tat of pretty much anything. Witness the guy you mentioned. But a medal is *presumably* issued by the military or government. Sure, you *can* buy them on Ebay; but the impression created by wearing one is that it was issued for valid reasons by a government body.
A rare bit of sanity out of the 9th Circus. It’s about freaking time.
They’re exactly right. The recent SCOTUS decision focused on speech only. It did not address the act of falsely wearing military decorations. That remains illegal under Federal law.
So remember, all you posers and wannabees: lying is protected (well, at least until you tell the lie to the wrong guy/gal and get your ass kicked). Falsely wearing the the medal is a different story.
I see it but I don’t believe it. I have to keep repeating, “This decision was the 9th Circuit’s?” –and I will do so until I can say it as a declarative sentence.
“But the panel interpreted the law to criminalize the unauthorized wearing of medals only when the wearer intends to deceive.” So, that should let the actors and halloweeners off the hook.