Is it a crime for a fake veteran to lie

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Lux_Lucis**

Kilkrazy wrote:
kronk wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Has it been made a crime?

If not, it isn't a crime, though obviously it's reprehensible.

According to the article, it is in the US. I haven't heard of this act. Or, at least, I don't recall its passing.

2005 Stolen Valor Act.

Under the act, it is a federal misdemeanor for unauthorized persons to wear, buy, sell, barter, trade or manufacture decorations or medals authorized by Congress for members of the armed services or to falsely represent themselves as having received such a medal or decoration. Convictions can result in up to a year in prison.

There you are then.

How do you get a licence to be a medals collector?

Ah, didn't realise it was illegal to trade them. Seems a bit harsh.

**kronk**

In my youth I recall seeing a bunch of medals for sale at a flea market. That was well before 2005, though.

**Lux_Lucis**

They're always floating around here. Especially Northern Ireland ones.

**Kilkrazy**

It's not illegal to trade in medals in the UK.

**Wyrmalla**

So its say illegal in America to wear your dead relative's medals as a sign of respect-ie going to a memorial? Medals are ten a penny at the Glasgow Barras and there's plenty of stalls selling other military memorbial (uniforms, kit, etc) and nobody has much a problem with those. Sure a friend of mine was told to leave a Hilton Hotel that we were at once because he was wearing his grandfather's Iron Cross (idiots probably thought he was a Neo-Nazi ¬¬), but I don't think having a trend of not allowing people to wear someone else's medals as a sign of respect is a good thing.

If a guy wants to walk about acting as though he's ex-military then that's his choice, though i would give him a wide berth. I've got nothing against people that just tote about in the uniforms though -though fashion wise its hellish.

**Lux_Lucis**

Kilkrazy wrote:It's not illegal to trade in medals in the UK.

I know. Was just pointing it out since kronk mentioned he'd seen some for sale. The contact centre for the charity I work for has a nice collection of stuff donated by veterans, including medals. Definitely mostly Northern Ireland ones.

**Jihadin**

CMoH is struck once for each recipient. Even they are not allow to sell it. Not even the ribbon the medal hangs from. Citing medals (I think Bronze and above) to show/incease your prestige in a false manner is illegal. Of course most companies do like one to show them a DD214 to confirm you left honoarbly. DD214 (ARMY) list all your awards and campaigns.

**Lux_Lucis**

Out of interest Jihadin, has there been any talk of amalgamation (instead of each service having its own medal for the same thing) or reduction of the number of possible awards in the US military? Seem to be a heck of a lot, but that may just be the way Wikipedia presents them.

**nels1031**

Lux_Lucis wrote:Out of interest Jihadin, has there been any talk of amalgamation (instead of each service having its own medal for the same thing) or reduction of the number of possible awards in the US military? Seem to be a heck of a lot, but that may just be the way Wikipedia presents them.

I know the question wasn't addressed to me, but public forum and all...

From my own experience in the Army, its not that there are too many, but that they are handed out too arbitrarily. For instance, when I served 1999-2003, there were soldiers that had a chest full of medals after a 2 year non-deployable garrison tour in Germany and now you'll see soldiers with an equivalent or less amount after 2-3 combat tours in the bush. Medal Inflation or Deflation it was called, depending on how you looked at it.

**Lux_Lucis**

NELS1031 wrote:
Lux_Lucis wrote:Out of interest Jihadin, has there been any talk of amalgamation (instead of each service having its own medal for the same thing) or reduction of the number of possible awards in the US military? Seem to be a heck of a lot, but that may just be the way Wikipedia presents them.

I know the question wasn't addressed to me, but public forum and all...

From my own experience in the Army, its not that there are too many, but that they are handed out too arbitrarily. For instance, when I served 1999-2003, there were soldiers that had a chest full of medals after a 2 year non-deployable garrison tour in Germany and now you'll see soldiers with an equivalent or less amount after 2-3 combat tours in the bush. Medal Inflation or Deflation it was called, depending on how you looked at it.

Whoever can answer it.

I think the most I've ever seen on a British soldier currently serving were nine and that's pretty damned high.

**biccat**

Selling medals isn't illegal, the law prohibits the sale or display "except when authorized under regulations made pursuant to law." (18 USC 704)There are presumably some laws that allow such sale (probably some armed services regulations) subject to some limitations.

The rationale for this law is that there's an exception to the First Amendment for "knowingly false statements." Commercial speech and libel, of knowingly false statements, are already exempted from the First Amendment, so it's not much of a stretch to create a general exception for "knowingly false statements."

I'm not sure I agree that these types of statements should be exempted from 1A protection. The SCOTUS has said many times that there's no value to false statements, but I'm not sure that's true.

I'd come down on the side against this law on First Amendment grounds, but I think the other side has a good case as well.

**Howard A Treesong**

Jihadin wrote:CMoH is struck once for each recipient. Even they are not allow to sell it. Not even the ribbon the medal hangs from. Citing medals (I think Bronze and above) to show/incease your prestige in a false manner is illegal. Of course most companies do like one to show them a DD214 to confirm you left honoarbly. DD214 (ARMY) list all your awards and campaigns.

In the UK you are allowed to sell your VC. The reasoning some have done this in the past is that the value of it can be split between people rather than have the favouritism of one person receiving it, which can be difficult. Most are donated to museums though.

**Mannahnin**

biccat wrote:The rationale for this law is that there's an exception to the First Amendment for "knowingly false statements." Commercial speech and libel, of knowingly false statements, are already exempted from the First Amendment, so it's not much of a stretch to create a general exception for "knowingly false statements."

I'm not sure I agree that these types of statements should be exempted from 1A protection. The SCOTUS has said many times that there's no value to false statements, but I'm not sure that's true.

I'd come down on the side against this law on First Amendment grounds, but I think the other side has a good case as well.

I'm of similar mind on this issue, but I'm generally leaning against First Amendment protections for this. It's a particular narrow case for which I can't think of any good cause or outcome to excuse it. It's purely harmful.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:It has a silly name, I know that. 'Stolen Valor' sounds like Jean-Paul Galtier man-perfume or something....

It's also the name of a particularly good and important book.

http://www.amazon.com/Stolen-Valor-Vietnam-Generation-History/dp/096670360X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323915314&sr=8-1

**sebster**

It only seems fair that the medal can be sold. The guy who won it earned, let him decide what he wants to do with it.

I agree that people who pretended to serve are pathetic, but they shouldn't be considered of having committed a crime unless they actually use it to defraud someone. Should it be a crime for a guy to claim he's an executive earning $200k when he's at a nightclub? Or that a guy is 1/14 Cherokee? I mean, unless there was intent to take property of another person through the lie, it just seems like a really dangerous road to start walking down.

That said, the manufacture of counterfeit medals should be illegal, unless they're clearly marked or stamped as replicas.

**SagesStone**

Wouldn't just wearing it in public be fraud anyway? Somewhat minor until they start demanding things cause they "served".

**Howard A Treesong**

Makes me wonder what reason you could possibly have for falsely claiming service and honours other than to get favourable treatment or outright fraud. From trying to trick people into handing over money to getting a girl into bed with 'a war hero' or a free meal in a restaurant, it's disgusting.

**George Spiggott**

Orlanth wrote:No it isnt. There is even a protocol for wearing medals that are not your own. You wear therm on the opposite side of the chest.

That would constitute 'with good reason' not a refutation of what I wrote.

Orlanth wrote:Impersonating a police officer is a crime, it more or less stops there. If you masqueraded as something you are not to gain something you might be done under attempting to gain goods by deception, but not for having a disguise.

No, wearing any military uniform without sufficient reason is also illegal.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/57-58/45

http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses/petition-view.aspx?epref=Stolen-honour

epetition-responses wrote:Government response

The Government takes these issues very seriously. Making, or attempting to make a financial gain by fraudulently wearing uniform or medals, or by pretending to be or have been in the armed forces or to have been awarded a medal, is already a criminal offence of fraud under the Fraud Act 2006. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. It is also an offence under that Act (carrying up to five years’ imprisonment) for a person to possess or have under his control any article for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud.

The unauthorised wearing of Service uniform or the wearing of uniform in a manner that is likely to bring contempt on that uniform, are also criminal offences under the Uniforms Act 1894, and may be punished by a fine or imprisonment. Any serving member of the armed forces who falsely claimed an entitlement to an honour would also be at risk of prosecution under the Armed Forces Act 2006.

**Mannahnin**

That doesn't say "without sufficient reason" is criminal. Those two paragraphs don't make the wearing itself criminal. They require the wearing to be part of either making a financial gain or bringing contempt on the uniform.

**George Spiggott**

Mannahnin wrote:That doesn't say "without sufficient reason" is criminal. Those two paragraphs don't make the wearing itself criminal. They require the wearing to be part of either making a financial gain or bringing contempt on the uniform.

From the act (linked in my post):

Military uniforms not to be worn without authority. wrote:It shall not be lawful for any person not serving in Her Majesty’s Military Forces to wear without Her Majesty’s permission the uniform of any of those forces, or any dress having the appearance or bearing any of the regimental or other distinctive marks of any such uniform:

From my post:
"The unauthorised wearing of Service uniform or the wearing of uniform in a manner that is likely to bring contempt on that uniform, are also criminal offences "

Emphasis mine. Yes, it does make the unauthorised wearing of uniforms alone illegal.

**LordofHats**

I've always wondered if those laws include exceptions for reenactors.

**Mannahnin**

Fair enough.

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

George Spiggott wrote:Emphasis mine. Yes, it does make the unauthorised wearing of uniforms alone illegal.

What about the removal of unauthorized uniforms?

Spoiler:

**Asherian Command**

Throw that guy in jail. I knew a guy that Claimed to be a POW in Vietnam. Every single generation he talked to at our school he lied to. He wasn't a POW, he was a business man that went to Vietnam for a while and disappeared and came back and he said I was captured. when he was really just seeing what was happening.
He lied to an entire school and an entire 2 generations of kids. He kinda deserved prison.

**sebster**

Howard A Treesong wrote:Makes me wonder what reason you could possibly have for falsely claiming service and honours other than to get favourable treatment or outright fraud.

Same reason people claim they punched a shark, or that they fethed Miranda Kerr before she was famous. People feel better when they say bs about themselves, that other people believe. It's weird, but there it is.

**Kilkrazy**

I wonder how many hundreds of people have been prosecuted under these various laws.

**AustonT**

sebster wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:Makes me wonder what reason you could possibly have for falsely claiming service and honours other than to get favourable treatment or outright fraud.

Same reason people claim they punched a shark, or that they fethed Miranda Kerr before she was famous. People feel better when they say bs about themselves, that other people believe. It's weird, but there it is.

Saw a dude punch a shark once. Killed it with one blow.

I mean it was six inches long and in the live well, insignificant details. The man punched a shark to death.

**Lux_Lucis**

AustonT wrote:
sebster wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:Makes me wonder what reason you could possibly have for falsely claiming service and honours other than to get favourable treatment or outright fraud.

Same reason people claim they punched a shark, or that they fethed Miranda Kerr before she was famous. People feel better when they say bs about themselves, that other people believe. It's weird, but there it is.

Saw a dude punch a shark once. Killed it with one blow.

I mean it was six inches long and in the live well, insignificant details. The man punched a shark to death.

Made me laugh.

**Khornholio**

Hmmm. I guess I should take 'Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (Crossed swords, Oak Leaves) - awarded 1993" off of the old CV.

**Howard A Treesong**

Khornholio wrote:Hmmm. I guess I should take 'Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (Crossed swords, Oak Leaves) - awarded 1993" off of the old CV.

At least take the swords off, make it a bit more plausible.

**biccat**

n0t_u wrote:Wouldn't just wearing it in public be fraud anyway? Somewhat minor until they start demanding things cause they "served".

Not really, fraud requires more than simply deceit, it requires an attempt to obtain some benefit. So if you wear a uniform to get benefits, then it's fraud. But if you simply wear it at an anti-war rally it's not fraud.

George Spiggott wrote:From the act (linked in my post):

Military uniforms not to be worn without authority. wrote:It shall not be lawful for any person not serving in Her Majesty’s Military Forces to wear without Her Majesty’s permission the uniform of any of those forces, or any dress having the appearance or bearing any of the regimental or other distinctive marks of any such uniform:

From my post:
"The unauthorised wearing of Service uniform or the wearing of uniform in a manner that is likely to bring contempt on that uniform, are also criminal offences "

Emphasis mine. Yes, it does make the unauthorised wearing of uniforms alone illegal.

I'm pretty sure that such a law would be found unconstitutional in the US under the 1st Amendment. The government can't insulate themselves from criticism by restricting the speech that you can engage in while (falsely) wearing a uniform.

Well, ours can't, I suppose it's different when your system of government depends on whose sperm put you in your mom's belly.