The Right To Lie
I am truly grateful to people in the military who actually lay themselves on the line on behalf of the rest of us, and I think it's really asshole-ish to lie and say you're a military hero -- but should it really be criminal to be an asshole?
In The New York Times, William Bennett Turner writes:
XAVIER ALVAREZ is a liar. Even the brief filed on his behalf in the United States Supreme Court says as much: "Xavier Alvarez lied." It informs us that he has told tall tales about playing hockey for the Detroit Red Wings, being married to a Mexican starlet and rescuing the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis. But as the brief reminds us, "none of those lies were crimes."Another of his falsehoods, however, did violate the law. In 2007, while introducing himself at a meeting of a California water board, he said that he was a retired Marine who had been awarded the Medal of Honor (both lies). He was quickly exposed as a phony and pilloried in the community and press as an "idiot" and the "ultimate slime."
But his censure did not end there. The federal government prosecuted him under the Stolen Valor Act, which prohibits falsely claiming to have been awarded a military medal, with an enhanced penalty (up to a year in prison) for claiming to have received the Medal of Honor. Mr. Alvarez was convicted but appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that the act violated the First Amendment.
...It's a question about the scope of the government's power over individuals -- whether the government can criminalize saying untrue things about oneself even if there is no harm to any identifiable person, no intent to cheat anyone or gain unfair advantage, no receipt of anything of value and no interference with the administration of justice or any other compelling government interest.
...The Justice Department argues that the Stolen Valor Act serves an "important" government interest: preserving the integrity and credibility of the military medals program. False claims, it maintains, dilute the reputation and meaning of the medals.
But the government has offered no evidence that lies by crackpots like Mr. Alvarez have in any way damaged the honor or prestige of medal recipients. A few instances of dubious characters lying about medals does not require the government to deploy the heavy artillery of criminal sanction. The United States has had military medals since the Revolutionary War, but the founding fathers didn't seem to think such legal protection was necessary, and neither did Congress until 2006, when it passed the act.
We have too many laws and too many are created to pander to one group or another without a thought as to how this accumulation of laws causes danger to us as a free and free-speaking society.
Being a lying asshole should not be a federal offense.
"Being a lying asshole should not be a federal offense."
It isn't. If it was, the sitting President and a bunch of Congress would be in jail, where they belong.
Meanwhile, how is this not slander? You have a clearly identified group - award winners - and someone who through their words and deeds defames them.
The law has to have a definition to be a law. If it's on the books now, is it more or less expensive to leave it there? Does your Congresscritter have time to look up from their intern's cleavage to care?
The average person doesn't have the time or resources to debunk these claims. Does Chuck(les) present as the ideal veteran to you?
Radwaste at February 21, 2012 2:50 AM
Nothing frosts my shorts more than someone claiming to be a former service member. Doubly so for someone claiming to have won the MOH or claiming to be an ex-submariner.
However, I think the punishment should be being tied up and kicked in the nuts by not less than five people who have actually earned the right to wear the MOH or Dolphins. Make the punishment fit the crime!
Jim Armstrong at February 21, 2012 4:41 AM
Many will have opinions about this.
The first I'll want to hear will be those of decorated vets.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at February 21, 2012 6:07 AM
Agreed, but lying to a Federal Agent should not be a crime, either. It's not like the government isn't lying to us.
MarkD at February 21, 2012 6:09 AM
"even if there is no harm to any identifiable person, no intent to cheat anyone or gain unfair advantage, no receipt of anything of value and no interference with the administration of justice or any other compelling government interest"
Well, now, there's a few things to argue with here. Starting with the 'compelling government interest', because there's no particular reason why their interests should be any more compelling than anyone else's...
But also, just that Mr. Turner can't find any harm, purposeful deception, or fraud, or any identifiable persons, doesn't mean that there isn't/aren't any. It's just means it's not obvious to him (the local version of the economic Calculation Problem) or is in his or the law's opinion de minimis. Well, I've never had much truck with the latter principle, it being a utilitarian consideration for the convenience of the courts, not an ethical principle.
And I think that at the very least, we must assume that Mr. Alvarez's lies were purposive. If anyone's been led by his reputational puffery to extend him credit - even if it's just $10 -, trust in his unjustified integrity or for that matter sleep with the bugger, all things entirely within the realm of possibility, then those people have been defrauded of their right to honest contract, a subset of their rights to liberty and property, in precisely the same qualitative sense as if he'd taken out a fraudulent $100,000 dollar loan, presented fake professional credentials, etc., even if in a much smaller quantitative sense.
In short, to analogize, the freedom of speech is already recognized as not extending to the freedom to deceive in matters large (fraud, misrepresentation and defamation); one is entitled to one's own opinions, whatever they may be, but not one's own facts. Extending this principle to matters small isn't a difference in ethics, it's just a difference in application.
If you ignore the de minimis principle and stick to the ethics of it, a lie is always an attempt to defraud the listener of something. Throw the book at him.
And a lot more of his ilk in areas other than claims of military service, too.
Alistair Young at February 21, 2012 6:57 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/02/21/the_right_to_li_1.html#comment-2991754">comment from Alistair YoungIf anyone's been led by his reputational puffery to extend him credit - even if it's just $10 -, trust in his unjustified integrity or for that matter sleep with the bugger, all things entirely within the realm of possibility, then those people have been defrauded of their right to honest contract
What about if somebody says they graduated from a particular college when they've never gone or were short a few credits? What if they lie that they're divorced and are really still married? Do we send them to jail? Maybe it's your job to check and not just believe what people tell you?
Amy Alkon at February 21, 2012 7:14 AM
"What about if somebody says they graduated from a particular college when they've never gone or were short a few credits? What if they lie that they're divorced and are really still married? Do we send them to jail?"
I don't, as a rule, approve of jail as a penalty for just about anything, but I'd certainly be willing to impose fines and/or punitive damages.
"Maybe it's your job to check and not just believe what people tell you?"
Trust-but-verify is all very well, but it does come with associated transactional costs: both tangible in time and money terms, information not being free or instantly available, and in intangible terms, in that it's kind of hard to claim to be trusting even to yourself once you've gone to all the trouble of verifying.
(This is, after all, why these things are illegal in the large, because business, for example, plain wouldn't work if you had to verify everything about every transaction to prevent fraud rather than punishing it when it does occur by way of example and deterrence.)
And looking at these costs, I prefer a social model where the costs associated with deception are borne, as much as possible, by the people practicing it rather than by the people on whom they may be practicing.
Alistair Young at February 21, 2012 7:27 AM
> Maybe it's your job to check and not just
> believe what people tell you?
You wake up groggy with stitches. The doctor promises he did angioplasty; is it your "job to check"?
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at February 21, 2012 7:28 AM
Remember this guy?
Or this this one?
I think being authorized to wield deadly force on behalf of your country is a special responsibility. Pretending to have borne that burden deserves some special consequences.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at February 21, 2012 8:24 AM
Mostly, I think Amy and the NYT are wrong to conflate being an asshole with being a liar. The former is sometimes forgivable, the latter is more often not.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail at February 21, 2012 8:29 AM
My wife's oldest friends are pathological liars, both the husband and wife. He's the jet-setting attorney who makes multi million dollars deals with black market Nigerian oil, she's the unemployed housewife that flies back and forth to Hollywood to see her clients Will Smith, Beyonce, Alicia Keyes... Their son starred in a Spike Lee film (actually he uttered one sylable in one scene), their daughter is engaged to a billionaire Saudi prince....
My wife buys every word they say as Gospel.
Eric at February 21, 2012 9:03 AM
This is no different from bragging that you were a firefighter, a Harvard grad, a rescue pilot, a secret agent, a model, or whatever. The legal consequences shouldn't change based on the respect garnered by the false claim.
If someone lies to the VA and somehow gets benefits based on his fake "service," then THAT should be a federal crime. (The VA catches these guys all the time: they say they're SEALs but were never at Coronado, etc.) If someone lies on his resume or business web site, then he should face the same consequences as anyone else who lies about past experience or accreditation.
But some guy bragging in a bar or lying in an interview? He risks being outed and shamed socially, but that should be it. (He may also get punched in the face by a fed-up Army ranger, but I don't think anyone REALLY feels this retaliation should be legal.)
I disagree that decorated vets should have the ultimate say on what happens to these people. (But the ones I am close to do not think this needs to be a law. They come across fakes all the time and will sometimes call them out, sometimes not, but they end the repercussions at social shaming.) Is there a legal precedent for letting "victims" determine the fate of people whom they believe stole from them?
Here is an excellent list of tips for spotting a fake SEAL: http://information.usnavyseals.com/2009/07/10-ways-to-spot-fake-us-navy-seal.html
Insufficient Poison at February 21, 2012 9:14 AM
> I disagree that decorated vets should have
> the ultimate say
There opinions will mean more to me.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at February 21, 2012 10:09 AM
Their. Y'know.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at February 21, 2012 10:10 AM
First rule of lying: Be ambigious. Make it a difficult lie to investigate.
He should have introduced himself as a retired "decorated" soldier. The Army is a big service. The Marines are a small service, consider themselves elite ("the few"), and quickly check up on claims to be one of their own.
And, since the CMH is mostly awarded posthumously, the list of living CMH recipients is pretty small.
That would be ideal. But the costs often vary and the punishment should be dictated by the degree of the fraud.
Telling a woman in a bar that you're driving a loaner Yugo because your Ferrari's in the shop is less dangerous to society at large (and even to her) than practicing medicine without a license.
Maybe the TSA could use their non-xray machine to check on it for you.
On the other hand, the doctor assured the hospital during the interview that he graduated with honors from a good stateside medical school and is board certified in cardio-thoracic surgery.
Should they have checked on that before they hired him?
==============================
A woman I know dated a guy who claimed to have been a Marine.
While telling me about his service, he kept referring to his "drill sergeant" - even after I said "drill instructor" in my replies to him.
Hmmm.
Conan the Grammarian at February 21, 2012 10:28 AM
> he kept referring to his "drill sergeant" -
> even after I said "drill instructor"
> in my replies
I love that stuff.
Carolla used to say you could fake a degree from any school in America by memorizing just a few beats: The name of the pizza joint, two professors, two buildings and the sports team.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at February 21, 2012 10:34 AM
Way back, when I worked for a financial services company in Florida, the finance department hired a Director of Finance who claimed to have an MBA from the University of Florida.
The company's Treasurer didn't want to hire him, but the CFO insisted, him being a big Gator fan.
The new Director constantly delayed producing any actual results with a string of excuses. His printer malfunctioned before the meeting so he'd have something next week. His laptop died. His laptop had a virus. You get the idea.
Finally, he was forced to produce something. He presented a time-value of money evaluation of a project in which he added ten years of cash flows together to get the Net Present Value - with no discounting.
He was escorted out the door by security the next morning.
Conan the Grammarian at February 21, 2012 10:48 AM
I'm one.
However, I am most definitely not a lawyer, so treat the following accordingly.
I think all lying beyond the trivial (a la: "No, honey, that doesn't make you look fat.") is despicable.
Sometimes, lying constitutes fraud. Where it does, then prosecute lies based upon the fraudulent intent, rather than their specific content, because there are already laws dealing with that.
Then shame appropriately.
Jeff Guinn at February 21, 2012 12:41 PM
I'm a vet with some fruit salad so here's my opinion. I think that lying is despicable-I don't think that there should be a law though because what's next? and thanks to the magic of google you can find out pretty quick if someone is full of shit.
Example there are more fake Navy SEALs than real ones. Also, what's the deal with guys always claiming the MoH? Be ambiguous with it instead of saying "I'm the only Navy SEAL, Special Forces, MARSOC, Combat Controller with the Medal of Honor in Existence"...say "I was kicked out of the Marine Corps for punching my Platoon Leader in the face." No one ever lies that route though...
Being a dipshit isn't a crime and I think the shaming when caught is worse (that makes the news)!
Red at February 21, 2012 1:26 PM
I am also a vet with some fruit salad. I don't think you should criminalize bar-room bs but some of these guys are using their phoney awards to ingratiate themselves with civic organizations and quasi political organizations that do make decisions that affect people.
We had one ex-PFC show up at the Mayor's inaugural ball in a General's Blue Mess Dress, claiming all sorts of awards. His goal, up until the Feds arrested him, was to use his "medals" to get him on some advisory boards where he could "influence" the outcome.
That's the dangerous side of this.
Mike43 at February 21, 2012 2:52 PM
mmm, it's just an opinion 'course, but indicating that you were part of the armed forces is also an indication that you had an official identity within those forces. Even if you are a civie now, at the time you had a position. If you were awarded anything, it was in conjunction with that official position, and the expression of it.
for that reason, I don't thinks it's wrong to expect that this is something that is akin to identity fraud. If as a lark you scam your way on to a base, you can expect to find yourself in a cell, till they figure out what you were doing. If you were using a fraudulent ID, you can expect charges, as it's a serious thing.
I think this should be a punishable offense, because it is part of a military identity, and it only belongs to those who have earned it and are sanctioned in it by the govt.
SwissArmyD at February 21, 2012 3:02 PM
Ah yes, the California water board. Used with mixed results in Guantanamo.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 21, 2012 5:31 PM
> some of these guys are using their phoney awards
> to ingratiate themselves with civic
> organizations and quasi political organizations
> that do make decisions that affect people.
With all sincere respect to Red, that's what I was getting at. Barroom BS has been the path to a lot of great sexual fulfillment. For me, I mean. I would never use that particular line of embellishment, but... If a huckster is just trying to pick up drunken chicks or score points in some cluster of oblivious stooges, that's fine. But I think
Well, two things.
First, I was born in the magical year of '59, and grew up BEHIND 'Nams penumbra... America was still so twitchy that I wasn't even asked to register for the draft at age 18. My older brother was at risk in the lottery, and that made for some tortuous family conversations at the dinner table. The point is this: My cowardice is the honest, full-bodied kind, nourished by fate's harshest caprice.
Second, I am therefore loathe to question the judgment of those who weren't so stoo-pitly lucky as me. If you're a soldier, and you have an aggressive response to someone who claims to have served but actually didn't... Well, fella, that's between you and him. I'm busy over here in Cowardstown, and can't be bothered to judge distant conflicts. Like, whatever, man.
Knowudimean?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 21, 2012 5:39 PM
Combat vet here. Career soldier still serving. This man should not be prosecuted. Outed, yes. Shamed, yes. But not prosecuted. This is another infringement on freedom of speech that will swiftly grow beyond its intended purpose and continue to water down a right that is already on the ropes. This is just another form of political correctness and for what its worth, not what I fought for.
The WolfMan at February 21, 2012 6:02 PM
I'm an 8 yr USAF vet with a light fruit salad. I was active during GulfI. I've been out for years now. I still have not met a vet that mentions his fruit salad without lying about it.
If the vet mentions they have a fruit salad, I instantly question its honesty.
As for being prosecuted for it -- I'm sort of split on the context. Doing a minor lie to pick up a chick in a bar -- it's what a fool you are. Making it a part of your "official" biography -- you need a federal level shaming. Is there a federal level misdemeanor that can follow you forever? Not really jail time, just something that you pay the fine and it is always on your record?
Jim P. at February 21, 2012 7:20 PM
> I still have not met a vet that mentions his
> fruit salad without lying about it.
Ah.
Well, still, this is and issue for Members of the Club to take the lead with.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 22, 2012 8:25 AM
Jeff Guinn at February 22, 2012 10:25 AM
As another note, prompted by reading on another blog concerning statistically improbable high levels of fraud in citing one's research in medicine, I'd like to just point out another reason why it's worth prosecuting (or rendering tortous) those smaller lies.
The "broken windows theory" (Wilson and Kelling).
The wide acceptance of these "de minimis" lies, I would argue, creates a favorable environment for bigger lies, frauds, etc., through pretty much the same norm-setting/signaling effects as urban disorder and vandalism does for larger crimes.
Crack down on the small, and you'll have less of the large to deal with.
Alistair Young at February 22, 2012 11:28 AM
"I'm an 8 yr USAF vet with a light fruit salad. I was active during GulfI. I've been out for years now. I still have not met a vet that mentions his fruit salad without lying about it."
Maybe you're hanging with the wrong crowd.
I have a Good Conduct (x2), Rifle & Pistol Expert, 1 Expeditionary for under-ice ops, dolphins and a Patrol Pin for 3 patrols -- all old, I'm out. There's no reason to make things up - hundreds of people have done this.
Which apparently bothers the hell out of hundreds more.
Radwaste at February 22, 2012 10:40 PM
Not sure if this was mentioned or not, but do keep in mind veterans receive preference (or points) on applications to federal and state jobs.
So, it's a bit more than telling some tall tales at a bar.
jimg at February 23, 2012 12:15 AM
Leave a comment