Actual Valor, Stolen Valor, and Harm

First, a great example of actual valor via Blackfive:

As an aside, whenever I see video of Reagan, I realize how small our current President is by comparison. 

In any event, this video an example of valor. It illustrates what appeasement brings, and what happens when you refuse to be an appeaser. People who don't like the military often fail to realize that the peace they enjoy is because other people are ready to do what is necessary. Too often, we fail to realize how much is being done by our military so we can sit back and complain about politics, the weather, and go about our lives. They can't have too much recognition for what they do. Which brings me to the stolen valor...

The Supreme Court just heard oral arguments in the case of US v. Alvarez, which is a challenge to a 2006 law that made it a crime to make false statements about being awarded a military honor. Alvarez had lied about receiving the Medal of Honor, and challenged the law on first amendment grounds.

As a threshold matter, regardless of whether you think the law passes constitutional muster, this guy Alvarez deserves a tarring and feathering. He's a scumbag. Someone who lies about being awarded a military honor is pretty much as low as it gets (for me).

However, it's an interesting question that he poses: "Do you have a protected first amendment right to knowingly tell a lie about yourself?" The Supreme Court seemed unpersuaded that this sort of speech had much "value". I agree with that. However, what is very hard for me to articulate (as it was for the Government) what exactly the harm is. Speech can be punished where there is a harm; perjury, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.

However, the harm done by asshats lying about being awarded military honors is more diffuse. There isn't someone that you can point to and say: "That person has been harmed". The veteran who charged up Iwo Jima to be awarded his medal has not lost any of his honor. Maybe one of my intrepid readers can articulate the harm, but for me, I'm comfortable with "I know it when I see it". For me, there's absolutely no value to this speech, it isn't likely to chill any legitimate speech, and the Congress thought there was enough harm being done to pass a law (because Congress is so wise, right?).

For all you lawgeeks, you can read the transcript of the oral argument here. If nothing else, read it for the hypotheticals that the Justices throw at the lawyers. I went into this transcript very confident that this  would be a legitimate law, but now, I'm not so sure.