Vets say 'stolen valor' issue before Supreme Court not a victimless crime

WASHINGTON — It has been almost 200 years since Napoleon Bonaparte said, "A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon."

A case heard in the Supreme Court Wednesday involving a man who lied about being a decorated veteran could be a societal landmine for veterans and the way they feel about awards that recognize their sacrifice.

A focus of the court case is whether the Stolen Valor Act of 2006, which makes it a crime to falsely claim, verbally or in writing, to be the recipient of a military honor, infringes on the First Amendment right of free speech.

Xavier Alvarez, a former public official who was never in the military, said in 2007 that he was a retired Marine and Medal of Honor recipient. Alvarez was later indicted under the Stolen Valor Act but has successfully argued his way through the U.S. Court of Appeals that the act violates his First Amendment right to free speech, and that there were no victims of what he said.

"It is not a victimless crime," said University of Utah law professor Jim Holbrook, who received the Bronze Star and Army Commendation Medal for valor for combat service in Vietnam in 1969. "The victims are everyone in the nation and the people who receive these awards who have earned them, and their families and loved ones who all have incurred the costs of that sacrifice."

"It's fascinating to me that judges who have never served in combat are looking at this through the lens of First Amendment principles without really understanding what military decorations mean," Holbrook said.

With the reference to Napoleon — it's not that the award or the ribbon itself has value, but that valor awards are the symbol for a sacrifice that cannot have a price affixed.

"That's why a First Amendment analysis misses the point," Holbrook said. "The harm is a social harm. It is a harm to our military" if there is no protection in the law to separate honest award recipients from fakes.

The high court has in recent years overwhelmingly rejected limits on speech, striking down a federal ban on videos showing graphic violence against animals and a state law aimed at keeping violent video games away from children. The court also rejected the attempt by the father of a dead Marine to sue fundamentalist church members who staged a mocking protest at his son's funeral.

And in 1989, the court said the Constitution protects the burning of the American flag.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said on Wednesday the earlier cases made clear that merely offending others by itself is not enough to justify limiting speech.