The New York Times covers this in an interesting article (which quotes and links to this post of mine on the subject). I'm inclined to agree with Rod Smolla that the law is likely constitutional; and this argument from Ron Collins doesn't seem to me to work:
“If the government cannot under the First Amendment compel reverence when it comes to our nation’s highest symbol [the flag],” asked Ronald K. L. Collins, a scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington, “why then can it compel reverence when it comes to lesser forms of symbolic expression?”
The law here doesn't bar speech that lacks proper reverence — it bars false statements of fact (and should reasonably be interpreted as barring only knowingly or recklessly false statements of fact), and the Court has held that false statements of fact generally lacks constitutional value. Nonetheless, as I argued in my earlier post, the caselaw is not entirely clear on this.
UPDATE: Surreal typo in title ("medical of honor" instead of "medal of honor") fixed. D'oh! Must have seemed pretty confusing at first glance.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Prosecution for Falsely Claiming To Have Gotten a Medal of Honor:
- More on the First Amendment and Knowing Falsehood:
No, it's the award they give you when you finally figure out Congress's prescription drug program.
Well, then CLEARLY this guy is a fraud!
It doesn't just cover important medals. It covers 'any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States'.
The law has upset medal collectors. An article on their frustrations can be found at maineantiquedigest.com.
Like Hillary Clinton saying she was under sniper fire in Bosnia?
This article from newsbusters.org says that the news articles describing the trip made no mention of sniper fire, and includes photos showing HRC and Chelsea calmly and erectly walking from the plane.
Of course, many will argue that newsbusters.org is a pawn in the vast right wing conspiracy and dismiss this article as VRWC propaganda.
Well, to be fair to Hillary, she and Bill have had this notion reinforced pretty strongly over the years.
In addition, Sinbad (yes I realize not exactly a serious voice) was on the trip with HRC and he said recently that he has no idea what she was talking about. (Sorry, I can't find the link right now.)
The comment from Sinbad is also mentioned in the newsbusters article.
I was deployed to Bosnia at that time. The only people with guns anywhere around the Clintons were Secret Service and US military. (Ergo, she might have been).
ALCON: It is the "Medal of Honor", not the "Congressional Medal of Honor". It is awarded by order of the President. Congress has nothing to do with its award. Including the words "Honor" and "Congressional" in the same phrase would be an oxymoron.
I suppose this is just an extension of that law. You can't claim to have the Medal of Honor, or any military award, or claim to be in the military if the claim isn't valid.
Linky
Maybe Eugene is right about the false statements of fact being constitutionally unprotected (Conlaw 2 was not exactly my best subject) but I'm very uncomfortable about the notion of the government selectively banning false statements of fact based on their subject matter. It's hard to put my finger on exactly what it is, but something is rubbing me the wrong way about the government deciding that some credentials are ok to lie about and others get you sent to the slammer for lying about. There's a legitimate antifraud interest here but we already have fraud laws for that.
The medal collectors have a simple and effective remedy available: enlist, and volunteer for service in Afghanistan or Iraq. Medal collectors who are ineligible for service in some way are out of luck, but that kind of discrimination isn't actionable (is it?).
Military decorations / medals aren't intended to be "collectibles" like stamps / coins / Beenie Babies(tm) / hat pins; they have intrinsic, symbolic value. They're earned, not purchased.
Any prosecutor's office with enough spare resources that they can prosecute someone for inflating their military credentials during the public comments section of a state water board meeting is a prosecutor's office whose budget needs to be cut
Sorry Pol, but “actually” the formal name is “Medal of Honor” - instead of looking at a commercial website (ending in “.com” is a give away), look at the laws establishing the Medal:
10 USC §3741. “Medal of honor: award” – authorization for the Army;
10 USC §6241. “Medal of honor” - authorization for the Navy and Marine Corps;
10 USC §8741. “Medal of honor: award” – authorization for the Air Force; and
14 USC §491. “Medal of honor” – authorization for the US Coast Guard.
In addition to other benefits conferred by its award, the children of MOH awardees are eligible for appointment to attend the Military Academies: 10 USC §4342(c) (U.S. Military Academy); 10 USC § 6954(c) (U.S. Naval Academy); and, 10 USC §9342(c) (U.S. Air Force Academy). [An applicant to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy does not have to secure an nomination for appointment, unlike applicants to the Military Academies. As there are typically between 9 and 12 otherwise fully qualified applicants for each slot at each of the Military Academies each year, being eligible for an automatic Presidential nomination for appointment is a significant benefit. As Cadets at the Academies receive pay, benefits and non-taxable cash allowances, in addition to free room and board and a college education at a top college, this can be a significant financial benefit to the child of a HOM awardee].
HOM awardees, and their dependents, are also entitled to free medical and dental care from U.S. Military Medical Treatment facilities and programs administered by the Service Secretaries (which apparently would include TRICARE), without regard to whether they would otherwise be eligible, 10 USC §1074h, and HOM awardees qualify for a “special pension” from the VA, 38 USC §1562. That pension does not reduce “any other pension or other benefit, right, or privilege to which such person is or may hereafter be entitled under any existing or subsequent law. Special pension shall be paid in addition to all other payments under laws of the United States.” §1562(b), and “shall not be subject to any attachment, execution, levy, tax lien, or detention under any process whatever.” §1562(c).
Thus, award of the “Medal of Honor” confers significant financial benefits.
And, it's a quick check to determine who's a veteran or service member, and who's military experience is limited to watching movies. Calling the "Medal of Honor", the "Congressional Medal of Honor" is a give away.
This is the first time I have seen the word "douchebag" on VC. (Just reporting for statistical purposes.)
really doesn't work that well. im my 7 years in submarines, it was referred to both ways by various commands, as well as the one person I met who wore one. (Michael Thornton, came to speak at my Nuclear Power school graduation.)
FWIW, in 18 USC 704, it is named as the Congressional Medal of Honor. And, although i cannot find the cite at the moment, I believe that CMH was the original name, and had been changed in 10 USC (as you note) in the amendments in 1963. I am not a military historian, however.
Respectfully,
Pol
Yes, there's frequently a spirited debate on this topic (which is surprising, given the number of "sea lawyers" -- you'd think we'd have this settled by now).
I'm inclined to go with 10 USC as providing the definitive name. I, too, noticed the 18 USC 704 use of the term "Congressional Medal of Honor". I can't explain the inconsistency other than to suppose that DoD (and the six committees that concern themselves will all things DoD) don't spend much time worrying about the text in 18 USC.
I apologize to a fellow veteran for being snarky. 7 years as a submariner deserves a lot of respect -- months at a time totally cut off from friends and family, hot bunking, and being surrounded by enough water pressure to crush you flat should even a small mechanical failure occur, is beyond the comprehension of most people. I happen, however, at the moment to be especially P.O.ed at a couple of folks whose Boot consists of no more than sitting on their duffs and watching DVDs, and mistaking that for real world experience. That, and watching pundits and “experts” pontificate on the military, when it is apparent that the only time they have “served” anything was working as a waiter in college, makes my teeth grind. (But, maybe you’re more like a former submariner I know who looks at the lighter side, and views movies like “Crimson Tide” as a farce comedy.)
As far as I am aware, the HOM has never been officially known as the “Congressional Medal of Honor.” In the Civil War an “Army Medal of Honor” and a “Naval Medal of Honor” were authorized, and in the 1950s legislation for an “Air Force Medal of Honor” was enacted. Those laws were amended and re-enacted to the current provisions in Titles 10 and 14, U.S. Code, for the services.
You make a very interesting point, however. Since 18 USC §704 uses the term “Congressional Medal of Honor”, how can it be a crime to claim to have been awarded a medal that doesn’t exist, and has never existed? That looks like a much better defense than a contention of a First Amendment violation.
It's entirely plausible that Governor Spitzer's legal team is making this exact argument in discussions with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Pol Mordreth -- is the correct pronounciation sub-MAH-rin-er or sub-muh-REEN-er?
No apology needed, no offense taken. (and I do tend to look at the lighter side, as I think "Down Periscope" was the most accurate submarine movie ever made... I know I've worked with all those misfits)I definately understand your frustration, and share it on many topics about REMF 'experts'.
I make no claim to expertise on this topic, I just remember it being said both ways while I was in, and that we were instructed that the proper format was CMH. I wouldn't doubt that some of my RDC's were wrong, though.. I sure wanted to tell them they were wrong about other things! (heheh)
Respectfully,
Pol
Allowing collectors to buy and sell military medals gives them recognized value. This gives a tax benefit to the widows of war heroes who donate the medals to museums and local historical societies.
The books that military medal collectors write aid the engravers and designers of new decorations.
I respect the military. I seriously considered a military career (I took the armed services vocational test and talked to a recruiter). I decided (it was 1986) that my country didn't need me. I know that I am not a hero.
This law makes it illegal for a collector or museum curator to truthfully say he wishes to purchase a civil war decoration.
As far as my last skipper said, it was sub-mah-REEN-er, but i personally feel that this is just an attack of acute inferiority complex. Since, as an engineer, first I make the water and then I walk on it, either pronounciation used by lesser mortals is fine with me.
(heheh)
As an aside, you do know that there are only 2 groups on any naval vessel... Engineering department, and passengers.
Respect,
Pol