ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> The Volokh Conspiracy

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal Commentary

: The Volokh Conspiracy

Stolen Valor Act Held Unconstitutional

By Eugene Volokh

ADVERTISEMENTS
(Eugene Volokh)

The case is United States v. Strandlof, which I discussed here, and in which I filed this amicus brief.

I found the opinion to be quite thoughtful and interesting, but I ultimately wasn?t persuaded (despite the recent United States v. Stevens precedent, on which the court heavily relies). The court?s theory seems to suggest that, while fraud is constitutionally unprotected, attempted fraud is protected, at least so long as no-one who relied on the attempted fraud can be identified. And it also seems inconsistent with the Court?s acceptance of false-light invasion of privacy claims ? see my brief for more details on those cases ? which rest neither on a specific well-rooted false light invasion of privacy exception nor on any plausible judgment that the false light tort passes strict scrutiny. (Note that the Court has treated the imposition of civil liability for speech much the same as the imposition of criminal liability, so I don?t think the false light cases can be distinguished simply on the grounds that they are tort cases and not criminal cases.) Because of the false light cases, and various others, it seems to me (and I so argue in my brief) that the relevant First Amendment exception is a general one for knowingly (or recklessly) false statements of fact, albeit with some narrow exceptions-to-the-exception, and knowingly false factual claims of having received a medal would fall into that.

But in any event, the court took a different view, and it will be interesting to see what the Tenth Circuit does, since I expect that the government will appeal.

UPDATE: Note that my analysis assumes that the Stolen Valor Act would be interpreted as limited to situations where the display of a medal would be understood as a statement of fact, rather than as fiction, hyperbole, humor, or parody. But I think that?s a sensible interpretation, and one that a court could easily apply as a clarifying construction of the statutory element of ?falsely represent[ing]? oneself as having gotten a medal.


Full post as published by The Volokh Conspiracy on July 16, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0038 secs (from cache 11/06/26 19:14:08)