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.
Ghazkuul wrote: I disagree with freedom of speech as interpreted by today's generations. The idea behind the 1st amendment was to give US citizens rights to speak out against the government and to put out unpopular ideas in order to get attention for those things. Mostly it was directed at the fact that the colonists didn't want taxation without representation and if you talked about that openly the Monarchy would have you arrested. What we have in todays society is the right to act like a complete A Hole without fear of anything because you can hide behind the 1st amendment.
Case and point would wearing a military uniform. As I pointed out if its for dress up like halloween or a reenactment thats fine. But when you wear it around the city or town because you want people to mistake you for a service member, thats not freedom of speech, thats Freedom of douchebaggery.
Considering something "douchebaggery" is all a matter of opinion, a popular one, but an opinion nonetheless. One person's "douchebaggery" is another persons "whatever". Douchebaggery, in and of itself, is not illegal. Legislating morality is never a great way to go about doing things.
And again, it is already illegal to wear uniforms for tangible benefits. IF you get laid because you told someone you where a navy seal BTW, Civilians are not the only ones who do this, I knew a guy who was in the navy, got a girlfirend who he picked up with the line he was a former navy seal. She found out. Civilians are not the only ones who lie for benefits.
If you are a child wearing a brothers or a fathers medals of honor it is acceptable. Some Pog how wishes he had had the go-nads to actually have done it. It's like masturbating and claiming to have had sex with a real woman. Pointless and a lie.
Hordini wrote: I despise stolen valor, but it shouldn't be against the law, it's free speech. Like others have said, if the person is falsely wearing a uniform and medals or ribbons and trying to get some kind of material benefit from it, then that should be charged under existing laws regarding fraud, but the wearing of the uniform itself should not be illegal.
Of course, people are equally free to expose and call out stolen valor in a lawful manner, like what Don Shipley does.
I play a lot of airsoft, where people like to dress up in full military gear for the realism. For the most part however, whilst you can emulate a particular regiment, if you've not been a part of it people tend not to wear the cap badge, or other insignia, as it's seen as disrespectful. Personally, I was medically discharged out of basic training with an Achilles tendon tear, and ended up meeting my missus on leave, never went back. I didn't finish my training, and therefore I don't wear the badge of the regiment I joined up to.....for me, it doesn't feel right.
Each to their own I guess. If you're into re-enactment, then fine. If you're doing it for some material benefit, then I agree with the people calling it fraud. What's the penalty for impersonating a police officer these days?
Ironically folks I just ran into the weirdest case of stolen valor today. Some guy thought it would be smart to wear his Army uniform to a Panera Bread in an Airforce Reserve Town. I asked him where he had been and served and he said he had just joined up.....he was wearing Captains Bars....
I decided to not make a big deal out of it, I Just called him a few choice words and asked him to go enlist and earn the uniform the right way.
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders
Ghazkuul wrote: I disagree with freedom of speech as interpreted by today's generations. The idea behind the 1st amendment was to give US citizens rights to speak out against the government and to put out unpopular ideas in order to get attention for those things. Mostly it was directed at the fact that the colonists didn't want taxation without representation and if you talked about that openly the Monarchy would have you arrested. What we have in todays society is the right to act like a complete A Hole without fear of anything because you can hide behind the 1st amendment.
Case and point would wearing a military uniform. As I pointed out if its for dress up like halloween or a reenactment thats fine. But when you wear it around the city or town because you want people to mistake you for a service member, thats not freedom of speech, thats Freedom of douchebaggery.
Considering something "douchebaggery" is all a matter of opinion, a popular one, but an opinion nonetheless. One person's "douchebaggery" is another persons "whatever". Douchebaggery, in and of itself, is not illegal. Legislating morality is never a great way to go about doing things.
Legislation is the establishment of rules to enforce morals of the community.
Definition of Law:a binding custom or practice of a community :a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority
Fancy way of saying the community has decided to give their morals a written form to be followed by all members of the community.
Personally I'm completely against someone pretending to be a veteran to receive any benefit, whether its material or not. I would say most cases of costumes and reenactment is fine, it crosses the line when someone is not playing around but actually attempting to deceive others. Deceit shouldn't be covered by the first amendment. That's taking a lawfully given right and using it to harm the community around you. Just like fraud, its wrong.
... it is fraud. One does not need a specific law to criminalise this behaviour because it is already illegal to commit fraud.
I agree with you, there shouldn't be a need to specify it explicitly. But in America there is an law (Stolen Valor Act 2013) that is written solely for stolen valor. I should've made that more clear. I forgot that Dakka is a global community.
... it is fraud. One does not need a specific law to criminalise this behaviour because it is already illegal to commit fraud.
I agree with you, there shouldn't be a need to specify it explicitly. But in America there is an law (Stolen Valor Act 2013) that is written solely for stolen valor. I should've made that more clear. I forgot that Dakka is a global community.
Of this I am aware - I was just making the point that there does not, nor really should there be a seperate law just for this specific "fraud".
Persponally, I find it a somewhat pathetic and contemptable thing to do, but if they are not reaping some benefit from it (other that whatever ego booste they get from pretending) I don't think it should be a matter for the law.
I just read an article recently about an LEO who accused someone of Stolen Valor and proceeded to publicly shame him for wearing a USMC dress uniform at a local art fair. Turns out the guy was an ex-Marine and the reason he was wearing the uniform that day was he had been taking part in a ceremony at a near by military cemetery. Even after the facts came out, both the LEO and his superiors refused to issue an appology.
There are folks who claim to be veterans/have won awards and or medals when they are not/have not that are doing things a lot more insidious than getting a 10% discount at Lowe's or Dairy Queen (where, by the way, they typically ask for military ID, and falsifying that should get you in a gak load of trouble). There are folks who claim these things, and are believed who then use that assumed experience/position to act as an SME or give interviews/speeches/become the public face for a particular cause/event and so on. They get no material gain, but their portrayal of something they are not often ends up causing all kinds of trouble.
No one is going to prosecute a fraud case for some gak bag who lied to get a discount on his ice cream cone or his gallon of paint. No business is going to go through the cost of a civil suit to get back such a paltry sum.
Having said that, I am typically against Stolen Valor laws. If folks want to be gak bags, let them be gak bags. If states/municipalities decide they REALLY want these types of laws, or the US people REALLY feel it ought to be Federal matter (shudder), then punishments ought to consist of 'community service' at a VA hospital, or a homeless Veteran shelter, or mowing the lawn and such ad the local VFW post. Of course, the ADM Boorda solution works for me too.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
redleger wrote: As for actors, if you know how to wear a uniform and you pay attention in the movies, they purposely wear them incorrectly so as to be in compliance. Wearing it correctly would be illegal if not a member of the service. It bothers me every time I see a jacked up uniform on TV but then my wife reminds me they have to do that.
This is 100% false. It's an urban legend that for some reason has begun to be propagated, probably due to Hollywood messing up uniforms so often in films. They absolutely do not have to wear uniforms incorrectly to be "in compliance" with anything. There are specific exceptions in the DOD uniform code allowing wear of the uniform for actors in films, television, and other productions, and none of it requires them to wear the uniform incorrectly. I don't know why this idea has become so widely repeated recently, but it is most definitely incorrect.
redleger wrote: As for actors, if you know how to wear a uniform and you pay attention in the movies, they purposely wear them incorrectly so as to be in compliance. Wearing it correctly would be illegal if not a member of the service. It bothers me every time I see a jacked up uniform on TV but then my wife reminds me they have to do that.
This is 100% false. It's an urban legend that for some reason has begun to be propagated, probably due to Hollywood messing up uniforms so often in films. They absolutely do not have to wear uniforms incorrectly to be "in compliance" with anything. There are specific exceptions in the DOD uniform code allowing wear of the uniform for actors in films, television, and other productions, and none of it requires them to wear the uniform incorrectly. I don't know why this idea has become so widely repeated recently, but it is most definitely incorrect.
Having watched "Battle; Los Angeles" one time and then wanting to rip the throat out of whatever Don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n the movie company hired as the "Marine Expert" I can agree with this. Nobody in the history of the USMC has ever called a Forward Operating Base a F. O. B. it is instead pronounced "Fob" and whichever person decided saying F.O.B. was a good idea should be shot with a bean bag rifle in the nuts
That teamed with the numerous errors made me never want to watch that movie again unless I wanted to laugh.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/15 10:01:03
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders
But, if the govt starts saying "You cant do this, its morally wrong" I dont like it. It is free speech whether we like it or not.
It's been my experience that "stolen valor laws" are only brought to bear because someone is attempting to defraud a business or government agency by saying they are/were military or whatever.
I have no problem with someone wearing say, a shirt with the 2ID logo on it, or the 101st unit patch. If I give a gak enough, or I think they are up to no good, I'll casually ask them about it. Usual responses are things like, "ohh, my dad was in X unit, and died in Y year, in [insert country]" and if you are even slightly able to read people, you'll know whether they are lying or not.
I DO have a problem, however, with people trying to get discounts, etc. due to "military service" that they never rendered. Hell, over half the time, *I* don't even ask a store about military/vet discounts, because I'm choosing to spend my money at an establishment because they offer a good/service that I desire, it's not like my life depends on them.
No one is going to prosecute a fraud case for some gak bag who lied to get a discount on his ice cream cone or his gallon of paint. No business is going to go through the cost of a civil suit to get back such a paltry sum.
Having said that, I am typically against Stolen Valor laws. If folks want to be gak bags, let them be gak bags. If states/municipalities decide they REALLY want these types of laws, or the US people REALLY feel it ought to be Federal matter (shudder), then punishments ought to consist of 'community service' at a VA hospital, or a homeless Veteran shelter, or mowing the lawn and such ad the local VFW post. Of course, the ADM Boorda solution works for me too.
A buddy of mine works mall security at a local mall... the SOP for "stolen valor" is usually to kick the person out of the store/mall for a day, if the same person is a serial offender they are asked to leave and never return, with the provision that if they do, it's trespassing and they will be arrested accordingly.
I agree, Having friends in the various forms of Law Enforcement (including one lawyer), my one lawyer fried who also happens to have been JAG when he was in, was telling me that, at least where he was practicing, "stolen valor" type laws were treated the same way as "coming out" in the military during DADT. As in, we're not going to charge you on that alone but since you did steal X, and defrauded Y company, and Z other offense, we'll tack this one on to the end of it as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/16 18:30:38
Ghazkuul wrote: I disagree with freedom of speech as interpreted by today's generations. The idea behind the 1st amendment was to give US citizens rights to speak out against the government and to put out unpopular ideas in order to get attention for those things. Mostly it was directed at the fact that the colonists didn't want taxation without representation and if you talked about that openly the Monarchy would have you arrested. What we have in todays society is the right to act like a complete A Hole without fear of anything because you can hide behind the 1st amendment.
That's not entirely true. While modern courts and culture have narrowed what can be considered non-protected speach, the concept of Free Speech has its roots in the enlightenment, with an assist from budding free market capitalism. The idea is essentially that the government should not tell people what to think, and what to say. "Good" ideas, as expressed by speach, would triumph in the marketplace of ideas. Many of the Framers were hard core libretarians.
However, traditionally, "free speech" has always included the caveat "except for stuff that's really wrong." There's no real unifying theme behind what's not protected, but the ancient ones include defamation, obscenity, fighting words, and profanity. As time moved on, the courts have started to be stricter in making sure that there is a really good reason to leave speech unprotected. So, for example, defamation is still bad, but fighting words are now only considered non-protected if they are immediate and clearly meant to indicate violence.
The framers also lived in a time where fear of ostracization from society was a much more tangible fear than fear of commiting a midemeanor.
LordofHats wrote: Fraud is fraud. The concept of 'Stolen Valor' is inherently redundant and based in nothing more than emotional outrage. It's superfluous, but w/e.
Yes, and no.
Fraud covers material loss. But if you dress up in a uniform, pretend to have been a vet, and go out in public appearance because you want the extra popularity that military personnel and vets receive, then the fraud laws don't cover it. If someone spontaneously offers you an ice cream cone (i.e. you don't solicit it) as you walk by his ice cream cart because he mistakenly thinks you're a vet, then it's harder to make a legal fraud argument.
LordofHats wrote: Fraud is fraud. The concept of 'Stolen Valor' is inherently redundant and based in nothing more than emotional outrage. It's superfluous, but w/e.
Yes, and no.
Fraud covers material loss. But if you dress up in a uniform, pretend to have been a vet, and go out in public appearance because you want the extra popularity that military personnel and vets receive, then the fraud laws don't cover it. If someone spontaneously offers you an ice cream cone (i.e. you don't solicit it) as you walk by his ice cream cart because he mistakenly thinks you're a vet, then it's harder to make a legal fraud argument.
There's only been one place that I've personally been to where you could say that military personnel are "extra popular"
And it's easy to quantify material loss. That ice cream cone you talk about, costs money. Those 10% discounts many businesses quietly offer military people, cost money. And, AFAIK, most fraud laws cover material gain, not material loss... Material loss would be theft, and entirely different set of laws.
Not for nothing, but when I worked in small businesses, the "military" discount was the same as the "senior" discout, the "loyal customer" discount, and the "you had a bad experience that wasn't our fault but we're trying to keep you happy" discount. It was also the same as the "if i buy all three, what will you do for me?" discount.
You can't give 10% discounts out like candy, obviously, but for small businesses with relatively high profit margins, increased business is worth it. It's something that nearly anybody could haggle for the majority of the time.
I don't think it should be outright illegal, however, I do think that any Active Duty servicemember or Veteran should have the right to kick their...rears.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
I find it pretty disrespectful and don't like that it happens. With that being said, if these folks are gaining something from it I think it should just fall under fraud. Hit them with a appropriate punishment under those guidelines.
Every single case of "stolen valor" that I've ever heard of or seen was just painfully obvious, that's probably because I wear a military uniform though. I'm just astounded by sheer level of wtf these folks wear, I'm often like " Oh come on, that's not even the least bit believable". Also, who wears their uniform "dress or otherwise" just being out and about? I think that last time I wore my blue was for a buddy's marriage ceremony because I was too cheap to go rent a tux.
Vorradis 75th "Crimson Cavaliers" 8.7k
The enemies of Mankind may employ dark sciences or alien weapons beyond Humanity's ken, but such deviance comes to naught in the face of honest human intolerance back by a sufficient number of guns.
I think the law has it correct now. I don't have a problem with it if the person wearing a uniform isn't trying to gain a benefit from it.
In my own experience, I've met/worked with quite a few characters who claimed to have been U.S. Marines. To my knowledge they never put on a uniform, they just claimed to be something they weren't. I guess Valor can be stolen in multiple ways.
Deadp00l wrote: I play a lot of airsoft, where people like to dress up in full military gear for the realism. For the most part however, whilst you can emulate a particular regiment, if you've not been a part of it people tend not to wear the cap badge, or other insignia, as it's seen as disrespectful. Personally, I was medically discharged out of basic training with an Achilles tendon tear, and ended up meeting my missus on leave, never went back. I didn't finish my training, and therefore I don't wear the badge of the regiment I joined up to.....for me, it doesn't feel right.
Each to their own I guess. If you're into re-enactment, then fine. If you're doing it for some material benefit, then I agree with the people calling it fraud. What's the penalty for impersonating a police officer these days?
As another Airsofter, I feel pretty much the same as this.
I have never served or had any form of official military training and so, even during airsoft games, I never wear any patches or identification on the grounds that I have not earned them. (fun time removing Royal Marines Commando patches from army surplus stuff, they really sew them on hard)
It also bugs me when I see fourteen year olds sporting "Taliban Hunting Club" patches in the airsoft field.
I do however quite often wear military clothing (new and old) in my day to day life because it's comfortable and hard wearing.
However I make it a point to only wear one item of said clothing at a time so as not to give any illusion that I'm military
If my long hair doesn't give it away that is
My personal opinion is that appropraite amounts of the uniform shouldn't be banned from public use, but the medals and patches should.
My hobby ADHD, mostly Necromunda, with a splash of regular 40k...
Okay i hate people who pretend to be veterans as much as the next guy but i need clarification. I wear my uncles air force jacket (he gave it to me, it is from the 70s) it has a few patches he said not to remove. if i wear that in public is it stolen valor.
I don't take any Veteran discounts etc. I wear it any way i just want clarification.
1500pts Kabal of the Blood Moon
200pts Order of Ash and Silver
Madoch1 wrote: Okay i hate people who pretend to be veterans as much as the next guy but i need clarification. I wear my uncles air force jacket (he gave it to me, it is from the 70s) it has a few patches he said not to remove. if i wear that in public is it stolen valor.
I sure as heck would not consider it to be 'stolen valor'.
I remember when my sons were into paintball. I gave them some old BDUs and ACUs to use. Neither of them claimed to be a sojer at any time when wearing them. I let them keep the name tape on, but cut off combat patches and airborne wings. I told them if they wanted to wear either of those, they needed to ruck up and earn their own.
Of course, Son2 is now an infantry ossifer and will likely get his chance to do just that.
Heck, I wear old BDU pants and a woodland cammo boonie hat from time in Panama when doing heavy yard work (wore them when I made a castle for the goats out of railroad ties last weekend for example). I will occasionally wear jungle boots or tanker boots when riding my motorsickle too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/02 16:27:22
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
If anyone can parade around with medals they didn't earn, how do people tell the legitimate people from those who are stealing valor? It's definitely, for all purposes outside of re-enactment and similar, immoral. Whether it should be made illegal, is quite hard to say.
1 GW standard case, 2/3 full of s,
One Kaiser Rushforth with guard in... Mostly painted! Try elementgames.co.uk for money off GW, saved me loads!
Like my avatar? Taking commissions, see my website. WIll be posted later...
NinjaJc01 wrote: If anyone can parade around with medals they didn't earn, how do people tell the legitimate people from those who are stealing valor? It's definitely, for all purposes outside of re-enactment and similar, immoral. Whether it should be made illegal, is quite hard to say.
Welcome to humanity where nobody has a solution that is both morally neutral and logistically feasible.
1500pts Kabal of the Blood Moon
200pts Order of Ash and Silver
Laws like this are problematic, especially at the federal level. The initial "Stolen Valor" (which is a disgusting name- you cannot "steal" the bravery of our men and women in uniform, and such acts do nothing to lessen it) caused major problems for collectors of historical memorabilia. The Act made it illegal for unauthorized persons to wear, buy, sell, barter, trade, or manufacture "any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces."
In 2011 the Supreme Court struck the law in United States v. Alvarez. Not content to let such an urgent matter lie (but unable to do much on a budget....), Congress passed a new version in 2013 that was signed into law. Of course, the new version requires "intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit". You know, theft by fraud. The same thing that is already illegal in every state.
As to the question in the poll: absolutely not. To say no one can wear a medal they haven't earned is absurd for the many reasons already pointed out. It could be a family heirloom, part of a re-enactment, play, or movie, etc. Even if someone is falsely stating they earned it, they should deal with social consequences. Passing a federal law to abrogate free speech because it is distasteful is a bad path to follow and one that has been consistently struck down by the Supreme Court as it undermines the whole premise of free speech.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/02 17:51:34
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
1500pts Kabal of the Blood Moon
s,
