|
|
|
Denver appeals court weighs military impostor law
Headline News |
2011/05/12 08:41
|
| p A federal appeals court in Denver was hearing arguments Thursday on whether Congress can make it illegal to falsely claim to be a military hero./ppAt issue is the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to falsely claim to have been awarded a military medal./ppThe case before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals centers on Rick Strandlof, a Colorado man who was arrested after claiming he was wounded in Iraq as a Marine and had received military medals. His lawyers have acknowledged the claims were false./ppA federal judge ruled the law violated the First Amendment. Prosecutors asked the 10th Circuit to uphold the law, which has also been challenged in California./ppThe law makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to falsely claim to have received a medal from the U.S. military./ppSome legal scholars have said they expect the law to eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court./ppIn the Colorado case, Strandlof, who founded a veterans group in Colorado Springs, was charged in 2009 with violating the law by claiming to be an ex-Marine who was wounded in Iraq and received the Purple Heart and Silver Star. The military said it had no record that he ever served./ppA federal judge threw out the case in July, ruling the U.S. government had not shown any compelling reason to restrict that particular type of speech./ppThe judge also ruled that lying about getting a military medal doesn't fall into any of the limited exceptions to free speech that the Supreme Court has recognized, including fraud./ppThe law doesn't require a showing that an alleged impostor got financial benefits or caused financial harm for a conviction./ppIn the California case, Xavier Alvarez, a water board official from Pomona, was indicted in 2007 after saying at a public forum that he was a retired Marine who received the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military decoration./ppHe pleaded guilty on condition that he would be allowed to appeal on First Amendment grounds. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit ruled 2-1 in his favor in August./p |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
