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.

I think that wearing a uniform with no service isn't the worst thing in the world, but fundamentally isn't any worse than, say, wearing a pirate outfit and pretending to be a pirate.

But if you're using the uniform to get some benefit from it, than yes, that's fraudulent, and should be punished as such.

I'm not sure how heavy-handed one should be if someone's using a fake uniform to get a free coffee from starbucks, but it's definitely an ultra-douche move.

But I think that only going after people using a uniform to defraud something is a reasonable stance, as opposed to going after anyone.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
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.

Just as a heads up for the future, Doctors and Lawyers, often start as Capts. (Not saying it's the case here)

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I think that wearing a uniform with no service isn't the worst thing in the world, but fundamentally isn't any worse than, say, wearing a pirate outfit and pretending to be a pirate.

But if you're using the uniform to get some benefit from it, than yes, that's fraudulent, and should be punished as such.

I'm not sure how heavy-handed one should be if someone's using a fake uniform to get a free coffee from starbucks, but it's definitely an ultra-douche move.

But I think that only going after people using a uniform to defraud something is a reasonable stance, as opposed to going after anyone.

So no difference from pretending to be a pirate to wearing a military uniform? Pirates don't exist anymore in the sense of having peg legs and parrots on their shoulders. The military sure does exist, people have earned it, gone through hell and back and were awarded those medals, and nearly 1.4million Americans died doing that. So to say that its not a big deal(kinda like wearing a pirate costume) is ridiculous. This isn't some $15 piece of trash you buy at the Halloween store. Military uniforms have meaning, history, and tradition built into them. So to put it on the same level "fundamentally" is an insult.

As far as criminal....If wearing Police/Fire/EMS uniforms are criminal and not "free speech" why the hell is not wearing a military uniform criminal? Im going to dress up like the FBI today....."free speech" no its impersonating a federal officer. Its a crime within the military to impersonate an officer but any old civilian can pretend to be a full Admiral and its "free speech". Its a double standard that needs to be fixed to protect the military, its traditions, and honor. Having people like 50 cent wearing a Marine Corps uniform is not only disrespectful but a misrepresentation of himself. Which IMO is criminal the same as misrepresenting yourself as Police/Fire/EMS which is criminal, felony in fact.

A guy in a USMC or US Army uniform cannot tell people what to do/pull people over/and so on. 'Impersonating' a soldier does not give the impersonator any fake authority like someone with a police uniform does.

Because they are indeed different, they are and should be treated differently.

 CptJake wrote:
A guy in a USMC or US Army uniform cannot tell people what to do/pull people over/and so on. 'Impersonating' a soldier does not give the impersonator any fake authority like someone with a police uniform does.

Because they are indeed different, they are and should be treated differently.

impersonating a firefighter in the state of Illinois is a class d felony. Firefighters have no real authority to tell anyone to do anything either. The ability they have for that comes from the fact the police have their backs and allow them as professionals do what they do. So your argument is invalid in that sense. It is still impersonating a representative of an official government agency. What if the national guard is called up for a disaster relief situation? They wear the same uniforms as the US Army. After Katrina the national guard were policing the streets of New Orleans, what then? Do we say its only criminal in those situations? Its a major grey area but the way I see it as people claim "free speech" as the reason to wear military uniforms is not valid. Free speech is protected by the 1st amendment except the SCOUS has ruled in Miller V California that their are times where it is unprotected.

"depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, contemporary community standards
"the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

What value does wearing a military uniform and awards unearned offer to society besides being inflammatory? The average American would say that wearing a military uniform and awards given to servicemembers that were unearned offers nothing of value to society and that it is offensive to those who served. So basing off the supreme court decision looking at general community standards in the united states that it is offensive and that it offers nothing to society besides being inflammatory towards military members its my opinion that it is unprotected free speech.

furthermore when someone is representing themselves as a member of the military it to me wouldn't seem out of the question to treat them as such

With respect to the United States Military, the federal government has extremely broad power to restrict the speech of military officers, even if such a restriction would be invalid with a civilian. The Supreme Court affirmed this principle in Parker v. Levy (1974) when the Court held the military was essentially a "specialized society from civilian society", which necessitated stricter guidelines.[68] Since Parker, there have been few cases to issue more specific limits on the government's control of military expression.

 namiel wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
A guy in a USMC or US Army uniform cannot tell people what to do/pull people over/and so on. 'Impersonating' a soldier does not give the impersonator any fake authority like someone with a police uniform does.

Because they are indeed different, they are and should be treated differently.

impersonating a firefighter in the state of Illinois is a class d felony. Firefighters have no real authority to tell anyone to do anything either. The ability they have for that comes from the fact the police have their backs and allow them as professionals do what they do. So your argument is invalid in that sense. It is still impersonating a representative of an official government agency. What if the national guard is called up for a disaster relief situation? They wear the same uniforms as the US Army. After Katrina the national guard were policing the streets of New Orleans, what then? Do we say its only criminal in those situations? Its a major grey area but the way I see it as people claim "free speech" as the reason to wear military uniforms is not valid. Free speech is protected by the 1st amendment except the SCOUS has ruled in Miller V California that their are times where it is unprotected.

"depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, contemporary community standards
"the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

What value does wearing a military uniform and awards unearned offer to society besides being inflammatory? The average American would say that wearing a military uniform and awards given to servicemembers that were unearned offers nothing of value to society and that it is offensive to those who served. So basing off the supreme court decision looking at general community standards in the united states that it is offensive and that it offers nothing to society besides being inflammatory towards military members its my opinion that it is unprotected free speech.

furthermore when someone is representing themselves as a member of the military it to me wouldn't seem out of the question to treat them as such

With respect to the United States Military, the federal government has extremely broad power to restrict the speech of military officers, even if such a restriction would be invalid with a civilian. The Supreme Court affirmed this principle in Parker v. Levy (1974) when the Court held the military was essentially a "specialized society from civilian society", which necessitated stricter guidelines.[68] Since Parker, there have been few cases to issue more specific limits on the government's control of military expression.

I'm just going to suggest that your understanding of 1st amendement law is misguided.

Miller is speaking about obscenity, a class of unprotected speech that wearing a uniform would in no way qualify. It's also an outdated test.

Basically, the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from infringing on speech, but the court has carved out handfuls of excpetions. Things like slander, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, etc. They're pretty narrow, because nearly all attempts to infringe speech really aren't in one of those categories, but in the general category of "offensive." And, of course, offensive speech is exactly what the 1st amendment is there to protect.

 namiel wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
A guy in a USMC or US Army uniform cannot tell people what to do/pull people over/and so on. 'Impersonating' a soldier does not give the impersonator any fake authority like someone with a police uniform does.

Because they are indeed different, they are and should be treated differently.

impersonating a firefighter in the state of Illinois is a class d felony. Firefighters have no real authority to tell anyone to do anything either. The ability they have for that comes from the fact the police have their backs and allow them as professionals do what they do. So your argument is invalid in that sense. It is still impersonating a representative of an official government agency. What if the national guard is called up for a disaster relief situation? They wear the same uniforms as the US Army. After Katrina the national guard were policing the streets of New Orleans, what then? Do we say its only criminal in those situations? Its a major grey area but the way I see it as people claim "free speech" as the reason to wear military uniforms is not valid. Free speech is protected by the 1st amendment except the SCOUS has ruled in Miller V California that their are times where it is unprotected.

"depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, contemporary community standards
"the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

the soldiers of the NG do not have police powers even in disaster relief conditions UNLESS the governor grants them. And guess what? At that point the same laws about impersonating police would likely come into play/ And as has been covered multiple times in this thread, using the uniform to gain some advantage, service or item is already covered under existing fraud type laws. Claiming arrest or detention powers is going to get you in trouble, regardless of what you are wearing.

So explain to a simple guy like me why you insist we need MOAR laws to cover things which are already illegal?

Read the work as it is stated not as you see it. Offensive to "community standards" the community being the nation as a whole. The second part I quoted states that it if it "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" which wearing an unearned military uniform does. It brings nothing to the table. Obscene/offensive(to community standards) speech is protected if it does offer something along those lines. I am reading the SCOUS ruling as its written and maybe not as its intended but as I understand the English language and the meanings of these words this is where I get my opinion. I am all for free speech and saying what you want even if it isn't the popular opinion but only when it offers something to society, which this doesn't. It is strictly inflammatory in nature to prove a point. No advancements in American culture can be made by these "statements". Hence why in the spirit and letter of the ruling I do not see it as protected free speech.

 namiel wrote:
Read the work as it is stated not as you see it. Offensive to "community standards" the community being the nation as a whole. The second part I quoted states that it if it "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" which wearing an unearned military uniform does. It brings nothing to the table. Obscene/offensive(to community standards) speech is protected if it does offer something along those lines. I am reading the SCOUS ruling as its written and maybe not as its intended but as I understand the English language and the meanings of these words this is where I get my opinion. I am all for free speech and saying what you want even if it isn't the popular opinion but only when it offers something to society, which this doesn't. It is strictly inflammatory in nature to prove a point. No advancements in American culture can be made by these "statements". Hence why in the spirit and letter of the ruling I do not see it as protected free speech.

Just as an aside, I am a lawyer. I'm not your lawyer (or anybody's lawyer), I do not practice law in the private sector, and I am not giving legal advice.

That said: you can read a court decision any way you'd like. But, to actually have a court grant a judgment that you are requesting, you need to learn to read the documents as the courts themselve do. And you are, alas, simply not. Jurisprudence is not YMDC: you cannot cherry pick one line, and decide to apply it to any given situation. The test you cited is actually not from Miller, although it is quoted there, but from an earlier Court Decision called Memoirs v. Massachussets, which itself was raffirmed the holding of Roth v. United States.

Even worse, you cited two elements of a three element test! The full text of the test is:

We defined obscenity in Roth in the following terms: '(W)hether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.' 354 U.S., at 489, 77 S.Ct., at 1311. Under this definition, as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value.

You cannot simply say that something meets two prongs of a three prong test, and then claim that it meets the test. That's not how the law works, even to a casual observer.

You might see that, but you are seeing it wrong. The test clearly indicates not only what the test is for (obscenity), but the three elements required.

 Polonius wrote:

Even worse, you cited two elements of a three element test! The full text of the test is:

We defined obscenity in Roth in the following terms: '(W)hether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.' 354 U.S., at 489, 77 S.Ct., at 1311. Under this definition, as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value.

You cannot simply say that something meets two prongs of a three prong test, and then claim that it meets the test. That's not how the law works, even to a casual observer.

You might see that, but you are seeing it wrong. The test clearly indicates not only what the test is for (obscenity), but the three elements required.

When I was a single guy, venturing out in my spit shined tanker boots, Cav Stetson, jump wings and swagger, I was the epitome 'representation of sexual matters', was without any redeeming social value and definitely was an affront to the community standards of nasty legs and non-Cav types, especially the guys wishing they had a chance at the Babes who flocked to me.


Eventually they banded together and said 'There ought to be a law!'.

So blame me.

Ah, but did it appeal to a "prurient interest" in sex? That's the real question!

SCOTUS is fully in favor of being sexual. Just don't be too pervey about it.

 Polonius wrote:

 namiel wrote:
Read the work as it is stated not as you see it. Offensive to "community standards" the community being the nation as a whole. The second part I quoted states that it if it "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" which wearing an unearned military uniform does. It brings nothing to the table. Obscene/offensive(to community standards) speech is protected if it does offer something along those lines. I am reading the SCOUS ruling as its written and maybe not as its intended but as I understand the English language and the meanings of these words this is where I get my opinion. I am all for free speech and saying what you want even if it isn't the popular opinion but only when it offers something to society, which this doesn't. It is strictly inflammatory in nature to prove a point. No advancements in American culture can be made by these "statements". Hence why in the spirit and letter of the ruling I do not see it as protected free speech.

Just as an aside, I am a lawyer. I'm not your lawyer (or anybody's lawyer), I do not practice law in the private sector, and I am not giving legal advice.

That said: you can read a court decision any way you'd like. But, to actually have a court grant a judgment that you are requesting, you need to learn to read the documents as the courts themselve do. And you are, alas, simply not. Jurisprudence is not YMDC: you cannot cherry pick one line, and decide to apply it to any given situation. The test you cited is actually not from Miller, although it is quoted there, but from an earlier Court Decision called Memoirs v. Massachussets, which itself was raffirmed the holding of Roth v. United States.

Even worse, you cited two elements of a three element test! The full text of the test is:

We defined obscenity in Roth in the following terms: '(W)hether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.' 354 U.S., at 489, 77 S.Ct., at 1311. Under this definition, as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value.

You cannot simply say that something meets two prongs of a three prong test, and then claim that it meets the test. That's not how the law works, even to a casual observer.

You might see that, but you are seeing it wrong. The test clearly indicates not only what the test is for (obscenity), but the three elements required.

So what you are saying is that speech that is offensive in nature, has no socially redeeming value but not sexual in nature is perfectly acceptable? I would argue that those standards should be universal not just to material of a sexual nature. It is one in the same the nature of the content should not dictate the application of this statement. That is how I would argue it.

Either way you are probably right as im not a lawyer but ill go to the statement on "fighting words" simply put that any reasonable military member or veteran is still likely to put their boot up the backside of your head, thus your actions/speech provoked the violence. Right or wrong I still see it as inflammatory and offering no social value.

My original argument of wearing/impersonating the uniform of any other federal/state/local is criminal. To say the military has "no actual authority" does not work as neither do federal/state emergency management workers, firefighters/EMS, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
A guy in a USMC or US Army uniform cannot tell people what to do/pull people over/and so on. 'Impersonating' a soldier does not give the impersonator any fake authority like someone with a police uniform does.

Because they are indeed different, they are and should be treated differently.

impersonating a firefighter in the state of Illinois is a class d felony. Firefighters have no real authority to tell anyone to do anything either. The ability they have for that comes from the fact the police have their backs and allow them as professionals do what they do. So your argument is invalid in that sense. It is still impersonating a representative of an official government agency. What if the national guard is called up for a disaster relief situation? They wear the same uniforms as the US Army. After Katrina the national guard were policing the streets of New Orleans, what then? Do we say its only criminal in those situations? Its a major grey area but the way I see it as people claim "free speech" as the reason to wear military uniforms is not valid. Free speech is protected by the 1st amendment except the SCOUS has ruled in Miller V California that their are times where it is unprotected.

"depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, contemporary community standards
"the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

the soldiers of the NG do not have police powers even in disaster relief conditions UNLESS the governor grants them. And guess what? At that point the same laws about impersonating police would likely come into play/ And as has been covered multiple times in this thread, using the uniform to gain some advantage, service or item is already covered under existing fraud type laws. Claiming arrest or detention powers is going to get you in trouble, regardless of what you are wearing.

So explain to a simple guy like me why you insist we need MOAR laws to cover things which are already illegal?

Im not saying we need more laws, we just need to include the military uniforms under the current laws. Like I said impersonating a firefighter is a felony and they have no authority except to enforce fire code which if you don't do it they just call the police. So again why knowing that would not military uniforms be included? It only causes problems people with this stolen valor crap

 namiel wrote:

So what you are saying is that speech that is offensive in nature, has no socially redeeming value but not sexual in nature is perfectly acceptable?

I'm saying that the courts have held that such speech cannot be infringed. Whether that is acceptable is a different story, but it cannot be banned.

I would argue that those standards should be universal not just to material of a sexual nature. It is one in the same the nature of the content should not dictate the application of this statement. That is how I would argue it.

that's not an uncommon sentiment, but the courts have, wisely in my opinion, decided that allowing a state to ban speech it finds "offensive" basically means that there is no free speech at all.

Either way you are probably right as im not a lawyer but ill go to the statement on "fighting words" simply put that any reasonable military member or veteran is still likely to put their boot up the backside of your head, thus your actions/speech provoked the violence. Right or wrong I still see it as inflammatory and offering no social value.

Speech does not need social value to be protected. Social Value is evidence that it is not obscene, but all speech is protected unless it falls into one of a few very narrow exceptions. And "fighting words" basically mean overt, threatening speech. You cannot ban speech because it might make people so mad they commit violence. That's called a heckler's veto, and the courts don't allow it.

My original argument of wearing/impersonating the uniform of any other federal/state/local is criminal. To say the military has "no actual authority" does not work as neither do federal/state emergency management workers, firefighters/EMS, etc.

The military is actually prohibted from law enforcement under the Posse Commitatus act.

 Polonius wrote:

 namiel wrote:

So what you are saying is that speech that is offensive in nature, has no socially redeeming value but not sexual in nature is perfectly acceptable?

I'm saying that the courts have held that such speech cannot be infringed. Whether that is acceptable is a different story, but it cannot be banned.

I would argue that those standards should be universal not just to material of a sexual nature. It is one in the same the nature of the content should not dictate the application of this statement. That is how I would argue it.

that's not an uncommon sentiment, but the courts have, wisely in my opinion, decided that allowing a state to ban speech it finds "offensive" basically means that there is no free speech at all.

Either way you are probably right as im not a lawyer but ill go to the statement on "fighting words" simply put that any reasonable military member or veteran is still likely to put their boot up the backside of your head, thus your actions/speech provoked the violence. Right or wrong I still see it as inflammatory and offering no social value.

Speech does not need social value to be protected. Social Value is evidence that it is not obscene, but all speech is protected unless it falls into one of a few very narrow exceptions. And "fighting words" basically mean overt, threatening speech. You cannot ban speech because it might make people so mad they commit violence. That's called a heckler's veto, and the courts don't allow it.

My original argument of wearing/impersonating the uniform of any other federal/state/local is criminal. To say the military has "no actual authority" does not work as neither do federal/state emergency management workers, firefighters/EMS, etc.

The military is actually prohibted from law enforcement under the Posse Commitatus act.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that at all, and the facts presented I wouldn't argue.

The part of my argument that I have said numerous times and the only part that hasn't been argued effectively is why do agencies that have no policing or law enforcement powers are still protected by law preventing impersonation? Fire departments being the best example. Impersonating a doctor, with our without treating patients, is criminal. Why could not it be argued that active duty military and veterans be protected under the same thought?

 namiel wrote:

The part of my argument that I have said numerous times and the only part that hasn't been argued effectively is why do agencies that have no policing or law enforcement powers are still protected by law preventing impersonation? Fire departments being the best example. Impersonating a doctor, with our without treating patients, is criminal. Why could not it be argued that active duty military and veterans be protected under the same thought?

Frankly it is not a hard issue to understand. A firefighter in many places does indeed have policing powers. For example:

In addition to such other duties as may be prescribed by law, the local fire marshal and those assistants appointed pursuant to § 27-36 designated by the fire marshal shall, if authorized by the governing body of the county, city or town appointing the local fire marshal, have the same police powers as a sheriff, police officer or law-enforcement officer.

(the 'assistants appointed' tend to be the guys running the firefighting crews). https://vacode.org/27-34.2:1/

The chief, chief engineer, assistant engineer, captain, lieutenant, executive officer or other person in charge of any volunteer fire company, association, fire district, or any other organization organized or created for the purpose of extinguishing fires and preventing fire hazards, or first aid calls involving either persons or property, shall have authority to do any of the following:
(1) Suppress any disorder and order all individuals or companies to leave the neighborhood of any fire or first aid scene.
(2) Command from the inhabitants of the city, village or town all necessary assistance for the suppression of fires and the preservation of property exposed to fire.
(3) Enter any property or premises to do whatever may reasonably be necessary in the performance of the officer’s duties while engaged in the work of extinguishing any fire or performing any duties incidental thereto.
(4) Enter any property or premises to do whatever may reasonably be necessary in the performance of the officer’s duties while engaged in the work of aiding persons or minimizing the loss to property at a first aid scene.

https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/wisconsin/wi-laws/wisconsin_laws_213-095

Section 32-5A-4

Obedience to police officers and firemen.

No person shall willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer or fireman invested by law with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic.

http://www.pricevillefire.com/police-powers.html

Police power is also used as the basis for enacting a variety of substantive laws in such areas as Zoning, land use, fire and Building Codes, gambling, discrimination, parking, crime, licensing of professionals, liquor, motor vehicles, bicycles, nuisances, schooling, and sanitation.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Police+Power

So your whole premise is flawed from the get go. Many fire fighters have police powers.

Also you are using one issue (impersonating a cop which has very real public safety issues attached) to justify making a law designed to prevent vets and active duty folks from feeling badly that their valor was stolen (NOT a public safety issue at all). The intent of the various "may not impersonate' laws has ZERO to do with cops/firefighters feeling bad or being offended. If you cannot separate the two issues, that is on you at this point. Most folks posting in this topic seem capable of doing so.

 namiel wrote:
The part of my argument that I have said numerous times and the only part that hasn't been argued effectively is why do agencies that have no policing or law enforcement powers are still protected by law preventing impersonation? Fire departments being the best example. Impersonating a doctor, with our without treating patients, is criminal. Why could not it be argued that active duty military and veterans be protected under the same thought?

That part is simple: its protect the value of licensing.

Doctors, and EMTs, and lawyers, are all licensed professionals, that have certain privileges others do not. As such, the public could be confused and rely on advice from a person impersonating such a professional.

I'm licensed in Ohio, and in Ohio, it is a misdemeanor to hold yourself out as an attorney if you are not one. However, (and this is the best part), you can sue a person impersonating a professional for malpractice!

@OP: I do believe dressing up as a member of the military or a veteran with the intent to procure some kind of benefit accorded only to military members and veterans should be a misdemeanor resulting in a fine, or communiy service. Doing so as cover to engage in a crime should be much more serious.

I don't believe dressing up as such for no reason but to gain the admiration of others should be a crime, and I actually feel sorry for people who do it, because it's a cry for help.

Also, there are some pretty clear freedom of speech issues here.

I also second opinions that Stolen Valour is a cringeworthy term.

It is a throwback to the propaganda culture that makes it appear that veterans deserve theme music wherever they go, and puffs up egos.
It is a counter-reaction to the Vietnam effect where too little respect was given and has been bolstered in to a common servile mentality.
Yes veterans fight, gratitude etc, but they fight in politicians wars and if the public are to have an opinion should use that to turn the common mans sacrifice in to the rich mans cause and do more to bring the profiteers of armed conflict to account. That of course will never happen.
Also its way too easy to find a veteran who did several tours on patrol in Iraq, we don't hear about any veterans who spent his entire service peeling potatoes or manning an office and phone line back home, and they outnumber combat soldiers by a considerable margin.
Yes those who claim to be servicemen to defraud or worse yet to infiltrate and cause mischief need to be stomped on, and there are various laws and bodies to do this.
However soldiers are people too, they aren't superhuman allstars, and those few who are don't tend to brag about it, and usually dont want others to brag on their behalf.
If society is now being engineered into wanting to place soldiers on a pedestal then make it a worthwhile one. Get them a cut in the benefits of society by extracting major welfare contributions from companies that profited from the invasion of Iraq.

A hot topic, but I dont think it should be illegal unless you benefit from it or use it to commit fraud.

I live in a country with conscription where "everyone" has to serve in the armed forces for a year. Its not considered anything special to be seen wearing a uniform, and in fact it usually means girls are NOT interested, since armyboys are 12 a dozen in the areas where the camps are.

The few people I've seen with false uniforms or medals are usually people with mental or emotional problems. They need help, not punishment.

Being a veteran of the U.S. army infantry for 10 years I don't care if a adult wears the uniform as long as they are not trying to benifit. I think it's rather funny that people want to be like me

And what is punishment for such crime?
What about forced conscription into penal unit? Let's earn those medals if you want to earn them so much

Unless it is in a 'masquerade or cos play' purposes, yes. FULLY AGAINST THE LAW.

It shouldn't be legal it's a stupid thing to do in most circumstances but not all. It's quite common in my local area for children of veterans to wear medals and walk in the annual rememberance day parades and I always find it quite poignant. One man wears his great grandfathers ww1 medals along with grandfathers ww2 medals and his own medals for home service during our troubles in NI. Despite his chest looking like a Soviet generals I think it great. Another young girl who's father was killed by IRA terrorists walks with her fathers medals every year and it would make you cry to see her with her head
high. So my vote goes to no more laws just people respecting medals and rememberance and wearing them appropriately

Knockagh wrote:
It shouldn't be legal it's a stupid thing to do in most circumstances but not all. It's quite common in my local area for children of veterans to wear medals and walk in the annual rememberance day parades and I always find it quite poignant. One man wears his great grandfathers ww1 medals along with grandfathers ww2 medals and his own medals for home service during our troubles in NI. Despite his chest looking like a Soviet generals I think it great. Another young girl who's father was killed by IRA terrorists walks with her fathers medals every year and it would make you cry to see her with her head
high. So my vote goes to no more laws just people respecting medals and rememberance and wearing them appropriately

The difference between ALL of those people walking in a parade, and what tends to happen in the US, is that they are not out in a fraudulent uniform, asking for a "military discount", Or running for office saying, "I was part of X unit" or parading their relatives' medals as though they were earned by the person.

Just noticed this poll, for myself, Stolen Valor should absolutely not be illegal.

Im a libertarian, I think if some sad bastard wants to dress as a soldier and tell little white lies (short of lying to ellicit fake donations and steal the money or defraud anyone obviously) then I think they absolutely have that right.

I think its terribly sad, but they have the right. It seems terribly hypocritical to say we "fight for your freedom" and then ban people from doing something as harmless as playing dress-up for a few hours.

I actually talked about this at length on my blog a few weeks ago, if anybody cares to hear me elucidate further.

http://newsfury.blogspot.com/2015/07/in-post-that-would-shock-and-of-my.html

But yeah, I dont see what all the fuss is about, I actually met a guy who was lying about being in the RM in a pub about ten years ago and I found myself feeling very sorry for him. I started out asking him loads of questions thinking it would be funny to call him out 5 minute later, but after a few minutes I just got the feeling the bloke was really lonely.

Long story short, I never bothered saying "I'm actually in the Royal Marines you lying bastard!" I just let him finish his ridiculous story and said "rather you than me mate" because I was concerned he would cry and I would feel terribly guilty about it all.

Seriously I think fully half of the people that take to time to dress up and put medals on and all that gak have actual mental problems, and they deserve sympathy rather than jail time.

I mean, how many actual veterans can be fethed to get dressed up and go to parades if they don't have to?

 mattyrm wrote:


I mean, how many actual veterans can be fethed to get dressed up and go to parades if they don't have to?

Only one's I've personally ever seen do so, were WW2 vets....


And the more I keep seeing this poll come up, the further I agree with you that so long as there is no fraud, or activity that is already covered by other laws, then there shouldn't be too much issue. Obviously, there's gonna be the odd person who is still actively in that will take offense and try to actually fight a person dressed up, but now that I'm out, I'm finding it VERY hard to care about what people do in the army any more. I've got a few war stories that I share with people, some others that only get shared with a select few people, and still others that I will only share with the guys who lived it. That's enough for me.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

And the more I keep seeing this poll come up, the further I agree with you that so long as there is no fraud, or activity that is already covered by other laws, then there shouldn't be too much issue. Obviously, there's gonna be the odd person who is still actively in that will take offense and try to actually fight a person dressed up, but now that I'm out, I'm finding it VERY hard to care about what people do in the army any more. I've got a few war stories that I share with people, some others that only get shared with a select few people, and still others that I will only share with the guys who lived it. That's enough for me.

Yes exactly, I agree totally. We probably have a similar personality, in that we are both happy to admit to our perceived failings. I am a confident man, as such I have never backed away from my faults, I own my mistakes, I think a real man can do no less. With that in mind, I freely admit (to my shame) that all the parades I had to attend were duty attends. I am far too lazy to polish my gongs, don my uniform, listen the the ramblings of a priest whose words never touch me, and stand at a parade for 90 minutes for remembrance day when I can just go to the pub instead.

This is a failing on my part, I'm not proud of it, but there you go. I tell myself I honor my fallen friends in my own way and often remember them over a quiet pint. I think if someone actually spends their hard earned cash on fake gear and takes all that time just to fake it, their is something seriously wrong with them, and I pity them more than I hate them.

This leads to my other reason, men lie. I cover it on my blog in a more lengthy manner, but men lie all the time. Actual combat vets embellish stories, sailors say they are SEALS, guys in the Air Force talk about all their combat experience and badaassery when we all know they spend 90% of their time watching TV. (tongue only slightly inserted into cheek!) serving soldiers lie their asses off all of the time too, where do we draw a line in the sand? Is it ok to lie to chicks because you think it sounds cool to make warry gak up if you are serving? Why is an army radio operator who never fired his weapon in anger allowed to bs about clearing caves with a shotgun but a civilian isn't allowed to merely say he was in the army?

People lie to impress other people all of the time, it ain't illegal, I don't think a line has been crossed. Also, in barrack towns every soldier knows its actually harder to get laid if you tell girls you wear a uniform. We all used to see who could come up with the most ridiculous fake job title while talking to women. Dolphin trainers, cookie decorators, chimney sweep, wedding planner, ice sculptor, Lego designer, you name it. Should we all be in prison?

Although, I maintain that it is never actually impressive, even when you aren't in an army town. The fact is, men are stupid and think macho bs impresses women, when it only impresses a very small and very stupid minority. Chicks don't like soldiers, they like guys that wear suits or labcoats to work, and grizzled auld grunts like us score in spite of the fact we fought in wars, not because of it.

Smart is the new sexy, it sounds cliched but it is very true.

 mattyrm wrote:

People lie to impress other people all of the time, it ain't illegal, I don't think a line has been crossed. Also, in barrack towns every soldier knows its actually harder to get laid if you tell girls you wear a uniform. We all used to see who could come up with the most ridiculous fake job title while talking to women. Dolphin trainers, cookie decorators, chimney sweep, wedding planner, ice sculptor, Lego designer, you name it. Should we all be in prison?

Man... that probably would have worked better than what many of us did when I was a wee young lad first in....

Around Fort Drum, they call it hunting for Water Buffalo, other places may call it "whaling" but you get the idea of the game

 mattyrm wrote:
Just noticed this poll, for myself, Stolen Valor should absolutely not be illegal.

Im a libertarian, I think if some sad bastard wants to dress as a soldier and tell little white lies (short of lying to ellicit fake donations and steal the money or defraud anyone obviously) then I think they absolutely have that right.

I think its terribly sad, but they have the right. It seems terribly hypocritical to say we "fight for your freedom" and then ban people from doing something as harmless as playing dress-up for a few hours.

true facts.

For those that might be interested we had a high profile case involving a guy last year pretending to be a Sgt from one of our infantry regiments but his uniform and medals were not quite right. He wore a para beret, no Senior NCO infantry sash, a pathfinder pin and a medal of bravery just for starters. These things stick out. The guy was even interviewed on national TV on rememberance day. He was outed in no time flat, charged and has just been sentenced. It is ilegal here.

This link summerizes the end result: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/franck-gervais-case-effectively-allowed-victim-offender-to-repair-harm-1.3179673