Main > The Round Table

Legislating Honor?

(1/2) > >>

Sir Brian:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/17/us-usa-military-medals-idUSTRE79G3F720111017

Here are some of the highlights of this story:

“Violators can face up to six months in prison, or up to one year if elite awards, including the Medal of Honor, are involved.” [sic]


--- Quote ---“The case involves Xavier Alvarez, who was elected to a California water board in Pomona. He introduced himself at a board meeting in 2007 and said he was a retired Marine who won the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military decoration.
Alvarez, described in court documents as a congenital liar, never received the award and never served in the military.
The FBI got a recording of the meeting and Alvarez became the first person charged under the law in 2007. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay a $5,000 fine and perform more than 400 hours of community service at a veterans hospital.”
--- End quote ---

I am admittedly conflicted over this news story. Part of me commends the legislative branch of our government for attempting to regulate the “honor” of our society and yet I can’t help but laugh at the folly and hypocrisy at such an attempt. Besides with such a lame punishment I don’t see why they even bothered. Now if the prescribed punishment was having a brand with “Lying Loser” on the perpetrator’s forehead then they would be getting somewhere!  ;)

Sir James A:
Agreed, the punishment is rather lax. I'm not really sure it conflicts with "freedom of speech" in any way, as one is free to say what they will. However, lying can have consequences, and if the lie is made in an attempt to gain fame, fortune, or power by making false claims which are clearly known to be false and attempting to garner support by actions and/or service which never took place - there should be consequences. The hardest part would be the enforcement, as you'd need evidence both that the claim was made, that it was made with intent to defraud, and that there is a clear goal to benefit from doing so (ref #1).

Claiming service and actions that never happened could mean that the lying person gets a job, contract, service, reward, or other gain instead of other individual(s) who are honest, hard-working people who never served, or perhaps served and did not receive any medals, who are overlooked due to preference for hiring veterans. That's taking something from someone who has earned a right that the liar has simply lied their way into. Having multiple family members who served with US Armed Forces and were honorably discharged - I have a grievous issue with those that would simply claim the honor of doing that which they have not.

In short, freedom OF speech is not the same as freedom FROM speech. Walk into a biker bar, tell the biggest, burliest guy you see about the terrible things you did to his mother/wife/daughter - you're free to do so, but that won't keep you free from his attempts (or success) at making you own up to your words. "Stupid should hurt", as I've heard it said many times. Seems like people keep feeling entitled to complete protection from anything and everything, no matter what they do, smart or stupid, moral or immoral, legal or illegal.

As to what, if any, gain was to be had from the case in the article, I don't know. It's missing a lot of information and I'd need to know more before calling his actions criminal or just stupid.

(ref #1) - People who are doing re-enactments, in stage shows, halloween parties, etc, that are portraying a "character" should obviously be known to be doing as such.

Sir Brian:
Well said Sir James and completely agree!
I especially like this part!

--- Quote ---"Stupid should hurt"
--- End quote ---

Unfortunately it isn't always just the party 'breaking stupid' that suffers the pain! :(

Sir William:
$5000 and 400 hours of community service isn't anything to sneeze at if you're in my tax bracket.  Especially the 400 hours of community service...that's 10 full work weeks...or, if you do it like most, 8 hours on Sat and 8 on Sun, you're talking about 50 weekends, or nigh a full year if you do them consecutively.

I think the punishment is appropriately harsh, especially if the community service is spent lecturing teens and at-risk youth on the consequences of lying to get ahead in life- to have to face that ad infinitum should serve to give this guy pause...at least long enough to think before he speaks.  If the lesson is learned, then it is well done.

Sir Edward:
Yeah, this sort of case always swings back to the Free Speech issue. I think it's OK to prosecute cases like this, since it's a willful misrepresentation that may influence others in a damaging way (for instance, if there are companies that give away free services and goods to decorated veterans, or it could be used to sway an election). Free Speech protections are primarily meant to prevent prosecution for speaking out against cultural norms, the government, and so on. It of course extends to all speech, so long as it's not causing intentional harm to others in a tangible way.

 The system does permit the government to apply some sensible regulation on rights. For instance, yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire can get you into a heap of trouble, since you're willfully endangering others with such a lie. Also, impersonating a law enforcement officer is similarly illegal. I think this falls into a similar category, IMHO.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page