Talk:Stolen Valor Act of 2005/Archive 1

Archive 1

Purpose

The President has signed it into law. This law was never intended to, nor does it, inhibit anyone from selling, buying, trading, or displaying military medals (except the Medal of Honor). The minute that someone holds up one of those medals that he or she purchased and said, "I earned that medal by....." he/she has broken the law. It is too bad that a law like this was needed, but you would not believe the number of people who have spoken at school assemblies, public engagements, been honored at military affairs, had their local newspapers do stories about what great heroes they are, when in actuality they never served a day in the military. As the original autoress of the Bill, I am glad it is now a law. Pamla Sterner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.180.97 (talk • contribs)

We will have to wait until the matching administrative law is changed to see the reall effects. I think the intent was good, but some of the wording is ambiguious. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Pamla, I'm not sure what your initial draft looked like, but law reads:

Subsection (a) of section 704 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `manufactures, or sells' and inserting `purchases, attempts to purchase, solicits for purchase, mails, ships, imports, exports, produces blank certificates of receipt for, manufactures, sells, attempts to sell, advertises for sale, trades, barters, or exchanges for anything of value'.

The referred to Subsection (a) of section 704 of title 18 reads:

Whoever knowingly wears, manufactures, or sells any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, or the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal, or any colorable imitation thereof, except when authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

207.140.171.5 (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Although the new law modifies Title 18 USC, Section 704, it does not impact the legitimate purchase, sale, or possession of medals. The key part of this passage is the phrase: "except when authorized under regulations made pursuant to law." That exception refers to 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 507. I believe the concerns raised by collectors and dealers of military medals and memorabilia may stem from lack of familiarity with the CFR and its relationship to statutory law. The CFR is the regulation that implements and administers statutory provisions, in this case, the provisions of 18 USC Section 704 as amended by the Stolen Valor Act.

The CFR specifically states in Section 507.12 ( “Mere possession by a person of any of the articles prescribed in Sec. 507.8 of this part is authorized provided that such possession is not used to defraud or misrepresent the identification or status of the individuals concerned.” According to numerous legal experts consulted on the drafting of the Stolen Valor legislation, “mere possession” would include: family members that inherit medals, museums, collectors, approved medals dealers, historians, and other persons in possession or selling medals that do not use them for fraudulent purposes. In addition, CFR Sec. 507.8(a) indicates, “the articles listed in paragraphs (a) (1) through (10) of this section are authorized for manufacture and sale when made in accordance with approved specifications, purchase descriptions or drawings.”

Year

Stupid question... but 2005? Surely if it's getting passed this year it would be the --- Act of 2006? Shimgray | talk | 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Acts are referred to by the year they are introduced, which was 2005 for this one, at least until they are signed into law. If the title changes, I'll change the article title, but so far the Pres hasn't signed it. We'll see. Rlevse 21:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It was signed by the President 20 Dec., 2006 as public law 109-437207.140.171.5 (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Would someone with more familiarity with this law post a brief summary at the start of this article outlining its provisions? I think this information would be pretty useful - though we might need a legal disclaimer, too, stating that Wikipedia's interpretation is not a legal opinion. Rklawton 18:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I would like to know the outline too. I came here to find out if simply wearing an old military jacket with patches (like rank or company) would be legal now. If so, I'm going to have to become a lobbyist because that is just ridiculous. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Misdemeanor, not a felony

Although it has been thrown around Wikipedia and the internet a lot, violation of 18 U.S.C. 704 is either a class A or B misdemeanor, not a felony. See 18 U.S.C. 3559(a) for the classification of offenses based on the term of imprisonment authorized by the statute. Any reference to this as a felony is incorrect and all of the various medal Wiki pages need to be corrected. Slyjackalope (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Felony or misdemeanor? Well, some poser needs to tell Senator Salazar the "good news" that it is only a misdemeanor.

http://www.house.gov/list/press/co03_salazar/PR_092807.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.76.145 (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

---

No, some moron needs to look up the citations to the actual statutes that I provided and argue to the contrary. Just because some aide in a senator's office issues a press release doesn't mean that that person knows anything about the law. Slyjackalope (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Condescending comments like "moron" will get you nowhere fast on wiki. You may want to refactor that statement and also look at the history as to what caused that to reappear. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a federal misdemeanor punishable by ONLY up to 6 months of confinement. See http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/laws/109/publ437.109.pdf Republic of Texas (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sales pitch?

I am not at all clear on how this was a sales pitch:

"The Orders and Medals Society of America (OMSA), an organization of collectors, had opposed the bill in its current form. OMSA is of the opinion that the changes to 18 U.S.C. § 704 included wording that implied that any movement or exchange of medals would be illegal."

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was a sales pitch either, I'm reinserting. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Agreed. I may not agree with it, but it's still valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.7.177 (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

---

It's a total sales pitch by a group of people who never served in the military trying to sell at flea markets and antique stores valor they didnt earn. Disgusting and therefore I am removing it as it does not deserve being on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfGrunt (talk • contribs) 02:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a religion and you're worse than the ones you're castigating, "ProfGrunt". Plato's "Noble Lie" is run amok here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.252.184.166 (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, PF, most of the OMSA have seen service in the military. I myself am registered (although not very active) and have been in the Naval Reserve for 15 years. -OberRanks (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a member, but I have used some of their resources for article research. Characterizing them as "flea market dealers" is certainly not fair— many of the collectors are in it for the history. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an OMSA member either, but I have collected medals, uniforms, etc. for decades. I served a total of 15 years in the Marine Corps - last rank SSgt, last MOS 0369. The selling, trading, bartering etc. of full size US medals is the method by which collectors build collections. I've displayed my collection countless times - often for veterans organizations. The interest fostered in history by my and similar displays makes this a worthwhile endeavor. I have also presented "living history" sessions for college and high school classes as a WWI infantryman - in uniform, with complete kit. A 30 minute talk regarding life in the trenches and at the home front followed by a question and answer session furthers and deepens the students' knowledge of the subject matter. However, according to the provisions of the stolen valor act, I am a law-breaker. Those who make false claims regarding military service - including awards for valor - should be nailed to the cross. However, those of us who keep history alive should be allowed to do so without fear of running afoul of the law. Semper Fidelis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

References

What's the status of the act now?

I'm no lawyer. Is the act still in effect until something is done to formally remove it from the books, or what? The intro needs to be updated. Clarityfiend (talk)

The government has just appealed to the Supreme Court (Threat Level article) but is still considered valid in most areas. It has been twice ruled unconstitutional but that doesn't yet apply nationwide; the Supreme Court ruling will be definitive. CoyneT ^talk 03:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A Limit on Free Speech

This section seems out-of-place in the article, and perhaps NNPOV. Should it be removed and replaced by links to First Amendment articles? CoyneT ^talk 03:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The right to steal valour (lie) is being justified on Free Speech grounds. It seems proper therefore to mention an accepted limit to Free speech (such as "crying FIRE falsely"). The next step is to find a slightly broader limit to free speech that prohibits Stolen Valour. This seems suitable for this article rather than putting it elsewhere. Tabletop (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

One might add that the article on First Amendment and Freedom of speech in the United States are rather long which requires an effort to find the relevant parts.]] Tabletop (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

the material on Holmes is misleading and incomplete, including the link of "clear and present danger" to "conscription," which has no basis in fact whatsoever. It should be removed in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrettepps (talk • contribs) 16:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that including it in this manner is original research. What sources are there that connect this content to the act? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

One might linkt to Clear and present danger. Tabletop (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Naming the Act

Is the law named after Burkett's book of the same tittle, (self)-published some seven years prior to the statute? If so, that information should be recorded in the body of the article. Orthotox (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

While it seems likely, it needs a source. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Legal scholarship?

The entire section is nothing more than an editor's original research. That is, a few judges (not legal scholars) have decided other cases involving "false" speech and the editor draws analogies between those cases and applies some American Bar Association rules regarding ethical conduct. Not allowed. Now if there was an actual scholarly article -- like in a law review or other such journal -- that research could be synthesized and put in the article. But not this stuff. Leave it out.--S. Rich (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Act Struck Down

On June 28, 2012, the Stolen Valor Act was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.86.117 (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about the point of this comment? Just calling attention to the news? Perhaps it could have been handled via the new feedback mechanism--except that there is no link in this article to the feedback system. For myself, I was mostly planning to offer feedback that it seems to be a pretty good article. I do regard it as a kind of trivial topic, but I was looking for the trivial details of who were the three (or 2-1/2?) dissenting votes. The article included that information, but I would have liked to see a direct link to the ruling (but I'm guessing that link is not ready yet), and either more information or a clear link to an article on the limitations of the First Amendment. Not sure it matters in these post-Citizens-United days, since any lie can be defended with sufficient corporate cash... {Yes, I'm counting Thomas as a half vote, if not a halfwit.} Shanen (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I now realize that my second suggestion was actually addressed in the table at the top right of the article (through the link to the article on the court case, which also included the link to the ruling). Gotta keep my eyes open--or figure out a way to increase the default font size on the Wikipedia pages... Shanen (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Stolen Valor Act of 2013

President Obama has since signed the Stolen Valor Act of 2013. Since the previous act was deemed unconstitutional, should we wait until there's new challenges to illegality of this sort of fraud? Chris Troutman (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I vote write it up. We can follow up and update the article if and when some legal challenge happens. —Ed!^(talk) 00:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Other Countries

Do we need to mention the British guy? I think we don't because it was not a law that he violated, he was just thrown out. --InformationContributor11 (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I had the same reaction. -Iain --2001:44B8:41A5:9300:9227:E4FF:FEF1:A18F (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm curious why there is a section for other countries at all. This article is about a specific, American, law. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Out it goes. WP:OFFTOPIC.--S. Rich (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)14:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)~

But there is the same problem in other countries. A more general topic is needed. Tabletop (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stolen Valor Act of 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/109/h/h3352.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/109/s/s1998.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070526071447/http://www.theorator.com:80/bills109/s1998.html to http://www.theorator.com/bills109/s1998.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070121044332/http://www.pownetwork.org:80/phonies/stolen_valor_media_information_sheet.htm to http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/stolen_valor_media_information_sheet.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stevenlwaterman.com/steve/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://omsa.org/forums/showthread.php?t=446
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://omsa.org/forums/showthread.php?t=447
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/28/12457855-scotus-strikes-down-stolen-valor-act?lite
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214061621/http://www.pownetwork.org:80/phonies/phonies90.htm to http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies90.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)