Stolen Valor Act Found Unconstitutional

From the Denver Post:

A federal judge in Denver has ruled that the Stolen Valor Act is "facially unconstitutional" because it violates free speech, and he dismissed the criminal case against Rick Strandlof, a man who lied about being an Iraq war veteran.

U.S. District Judge Robert E. Blackburn issued his decision Friday and rejected the prosecution's argument that lying about having military medals dilutes their meaning and significance.

The case is United States v. Strandlof. I know that many will not agree with the Judge's decision, and consequently my opinion. I wholly agree with the decision here especially with the facts of the case.

For the Judge to rule in favor of the prosecution, he would have ruled that lying could Constitutionally be considered a crime. There is a difference between lying and fraud, and what happened here was a guy claiming a lot of BS among peers. His actions did not meet the level of fraud because he did not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property.

The concept that the government should be able to determine what is true and then prosecute based on what Congress deems harmful deeply bothers me. Think about it for a minute, and it might actually bother you, too. The ruling that the prosecution was going for would have essentially granted the government the power to prosecute you for anything that it deemed false. I don't care what the regime in power is, that is not something that any reasonable American wants.

Think about it this way: if you claim that Obama is not a U.S. citizen, then a ruling the other way on this case would have paved the way for you to be considered a criminal. Likewise if you deny the Holocaust. Likewise if you have evidence that the CIA is funding the enemy in the drug war. Likewise if you claim that warm beer is better than cold beer and Congress claims otherwise.

See what kind of slippery slope we get? I'm almost certain you don't want to get on that one.