The Stolen Valor Act, passed by Congress in 2005, made is illegal for anyone to falsely claim, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded a U.S. military decoration. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. The ruling by six Supreme Court justices proved that they simply do not understand how lying works in real life.
Lies must lead directly to fraud
The majority opinion in United States v. Alvarez, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, said that the Constitution does not allow speech to be prohibited solely because of its content—the message or ideas expressed. In other words, people are allowed to say anything they want, with a few exceptions, including obscenity, child pornography, threats and fraud.
Kennedy points out that “the First Amendment requires that there be a direct causal link between the restriction imposed and the injury to be prevented.” He says that that the government may restrict speech where “false claims are made to effect a fraud or secure moneys or other valuable consideration, say, offers of employment.”
In other words, if a person lies to the Veterans Administration about receiving a military medal in order to receive higher disability benefits or a bigger pension, that’s illegal. But if a person claims to be a hero in a public meeting, as Xavier Alvarez did, without receiving an identifiable benefit directly as a result of the lie, then it’s not illegal.
Lies cause little harm
A concurring opinion was written by Justice Stephen Breyer and joined by Justice Elena Kagan. They agreed that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional, but for different reasons. They believed that the law harmed First Amendment rights, and the government could achieve its objective of protecting military honors through other means. In other words, the Stolen Valor Act was the legal equivalent of swatting a fly with a sledgehammer.
The problem, Justice Breyer wrote, was that the Stolen Valor Act made the act of lying about medals illegal, without demanding that someone be harmed by the lies. Breyer stated:
As written, [the Stolen Valor Act] applies in family, social, or other private contexts, where lies will often cause little harm.
Lying about military honors causes little harm in social contexts? Excuse me?
James Montgomery’s lies
My ex-husband, James Montgomery, told me that he had won the Victoria Cross, which is the Australian equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor, for his heroism in Vietnam. He claimed he was still in the Australian military, assigned to U.S. Special Forces. He showed me documents to back up his claims.
Montgomery didn’t only make these claims to me. He was active in the local chapter of the Vietnam Veterans Organization. He was the keynote speaker at a Veterans Day ceremony, and twice I accompanied him as he told a classroom full of school children about his military service, including how sad he was when his buddies were killed.
It was all a lie. James Montgomery was never in the military.
Montgomery lied in a “family or social context.” Did I suffer harm? You bet. James Montgomery took $227,000 from me, telling me the money was for his “businesses.” He spent much of it entertaining other women. In our divorce, Montgomery was ordered to pay all my money back, plus $1 million in punitive damages for fraud.
Did I get the money? No—I only recovered $517. I had to declare bankruptcy.
I was not the only person Montgomery swindled. I know for sure that he took large amounts of money from at least five other women, and suspect that he took money from many others as well. I know of at least one businessman who lost $100,000. I know American Express tried to sue him, and many credit card companies wrote off his debts.
I also know that James Montgomery is not an isolated case.
Lovefraud Romantic Partner survey results
All sociopaths lie. And, as I discovered while researching my book, Red Flags of Love Fraud—10 signs you’re dating a sociopath, 10 percent of respondents to the Lovefraud Romantic Partner Survey said that the sociopaths they encountered lied about being in the military or Special Forces.
So what happened to these survey respondents? Many of them lost money, just like me. The 114 survey respondents who said the sociopath they encountered falsely claimed to be military lost the following amounts:
- Under $5,000 18%
- $5,000 – $9,999 10%
- $10,000 – $49,999 25%
- $50,000 – $99,999 18%
- $100,000 – $499,999 19%
- More than $500,000 11%
What else happened to these unsuspecting targets?
- 32% lost their home
- 67% incurred debt
- 37% were physically abused or injured
- 44% had their lives threatened
- 28% considered or attempted suicide
- 26% had lawsuits filed against them
- 16% had criminal charges filed against them
Intention to mislead
Sociopaths lie about military service, and military decorations, intending to deceive, mislead and ultimately harm their targets. How does this work?
Most Americans have high regard for members of the military. We recognize that our men and women in uniform put themselves in harm’s way to protect the rest of us. These brave individuals do the difficult and often deadly work of preserving our freedom and protecting our way of life. For that, we honor and respect them.
When sociopaths claim to be military, their goal is to assume the mantle of respect and honor that that we confer upon true members of the military. These predators portray themselves as military so that we believe they can be trusted.
I suppose there are some people who simply engage in idle boasting when they claim military honors, and their lies, as Justice Breyer wrote, cause little harm. But I’m sure that many, many military impostors engage in their reprehensible behavior with a distinct agenda. They are lying in order to pull off a scam.
But it is not necessarily a direct cause-and-effect relationship. The fakers don’t necessarily lie to steal the benefits awarded to those who truly did earn the medals. Rather, the fakers lie to create a false perception that they are responsible and trustworthy, so that they can then steal money or other valuable commodities from the rest of us.
The justices’ view of the relationship between lies and harm is simplistic. Sociopaths are extremely sophisticated in how they use their lying and manipulation to take advantage of others. And now, because of the Supreme Court’s ruling, they can do it with impunity.
As a lawyer I have to admit I understand the legal reasoning behind the opinion giving sociopaths the legal right to lie. As a human being, I find giving any legal protection to the doings of these non-human vehicles of discord sickening.
One legal principle that gives me hope – the truth is a defense. By invoking that little number hopefully the organizations which run websites which expose these creatures will be able to stay up and running and continue to let the world know exactly what they are, because no matter what the sociopaths of this world may argue, the truth is the ultimate defense. And from what I’ve seen of these organzations, they verify their facts 3 times over before they publish an expose. So, I am confident they’ll be able to continue their good works.
So, while I am a bit disheartened with this opinion, I haven’t given up hope on the Supreme Court. After all, it was the Supreme Court which also came up with another legal principle – sunshine is the best disenfectant. That principle applied to open government, but I think is equally applicable here. The more light that is shined on these creatures, the better the chance of keeping them at bay.
Good article:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pathological-relationships/201008/60-million-people-in-the-us-negatively-affected-someone-elses
Great link share! Thanks, Louise…
Scarey to think that it sounds about right; hm?
Very scary!
I just want to say that the whole thing with Lance Armstrong, his cancer survival, and subsequent abuse of “performance-enhancing drugs” has caused me to feel NOTHING for him, but disdain.
So, he survived cancer. Yay! Millions of people do, every year, and I don’t see THEM being lauded as heroes or courageous fighters! Anyone with half a brain cell in their craniums KNOWS that a cancer survivor wouldn’t risk being further damaged by deliberately using any substances that could cause further harm!
What Armstrong has done is to diminish the courageous battles that cancer patients have fought, won, and lost.
Jeepers, it’s so convoluted.
parellelogram:
I agree. I don’t think I would listen either until I had actually experienced it. As a matter of fact, I was warned and didn’t listen, but that’s only because I thought she had ulterior motives. She did, but what she told me was also valid. I truly think people have to experience it before they will believe, but then the damage is done; it’s too late.
Truthspeak, no Bob didn’t burn them, sorry about that….They crashed a plane in to a field owned by Bob and my husband suffered fatal burns, and the other three suffered severe burns and Bob sued me (my husband’s estate) for $50 K because He (Bob) “suffered” emotional trauma about the crash and needed money to make him feel better.
He did not get any money.
On the Lance armstrong thing, I have thought from the beginning that he blood doped or did something to get an edge and his posturing as this “hero” sort of made me think it more.
Thruthspeak;
I could not agree with you more. Lance Armstrong is not a hero. He is a sociopath who continued to risk his life in pursuit of fame, fortune and power. A very plausible argument can be made that his doping caused his cancer. At the least, there is a very, very strong possibly EPO use caused his rapid metastasis.
Livestrong is Armstrong’s Second Mile…
My ex was having extreme difficulties in the military while we were married, and finally told me that he had been honorably discharged. (He had been going through an “Article 15” procedure just prior to leaving the service.) I asked him if I could see the discharge paper, and he told me that it was “already packed” for our move, and that I could see it after we relocated. I never saw the paperwork, even though we were married for an additional five years after that point.
After the divorce, an uncle of mine who had been in the Army for an entire career tried to find out the truth about my ex’s military career through a close friend of his who had access to lots of records. But it turned out that my ex’s records were sealed very tight to the point that nobody without extraordinary clearance could access them. I assume that this means that they contain lots of negative info (he had multiple Article 15 type issues during the five or six years that he served) because he never bothered to seal our divorce and child custody court records, and those contain a boatload of embarrassing information.
My guess would be that a very significant percentage of sociopaths tell MAJOR lies during the courtship phase of any new relationship. My ex lied about, and embellished his military experiences. Lots of other sociopaths lie about their educational or social background, by saying that they attended some exclusive preparatory school or by claiming to having degrees from an Ivy League university.
There are two major problems: (1) You may not find out that the S/P was lying until you are very deeply involved in the relationship (married, pregnant, moved across the country, etc.) or (2) you may make excuses for the lie because the S or P had a tough childhood, feels intimidated by other people’s accomplishments, etc.
In my case, it was #2 — he was caught lying about his military background to an ex-military helicopter pilot right in front of me while we were engaged. I certainly KNEW that it was a bad sign, but our engagement had just occurred, and I didn’t want to look like a flake for breaking an engagement just after it was made. In a way then, it was also #1, as I thought that I was in too deep to back out.
Gaslighter, number 2 could be a punny description for the lose-lose position his lies put you in!
My SP slagged me by stating that he had served in Viet Nam for at least 90 days (said he qualified for VA mortgage financing.)
When dating, he described in detail how someone named Donny had been injured and had died in his arms during his term of service in viet Nam. (Fortunately, the slag doesn’t have reoccurring nightmares…I’m the only one who suffers from what used to be called shell shock.)
Who wouldn’t fall for a war hero like that? He came back from Viet Nam to protest the war by burning ALL of his medals (proof) on the courthouse steps in Bismark, ND…where he had grown up and lived at that time…so not an especially long road trip…I would guess he traveled less than two miles to burn his “honors”.
Other than burning those many, many medals, my SP seems to keep memorbilia…especially anything that might give him bragging rights.
Years later when I mentioned “Donny” he acted as if that person had been a class mate who has been killed…not someone who actually died in his arms.
The real tip off might be that he (A former MENSA member…who can’t pronounce most words let alone spell them and is no longer a member because he moved to Minnesota and stopped paying his dues) can’t tell military time!
I was slagged by many lies, but the military lies were the statements that broke my heart and really suckered me in.
I was slagged by a professional liar…he must be a pro because he makes money by making others trust his lies.
I am suspicious of every word he says these days! Of course, it would be pointless to call him out on most issues…he’d somehow try to make me fell guilty for even contesting what he was saying. So, I just give myself an inward grin…Think you can make me believe that story?…Guess again, you blow hard.
Slaggers are not heros, they are evil doers in disguise…sometimes military disguise!