Fact check: What are the specifics of stolen valor laws in the United States?

1. Summary of the results

Federal Level - Constitutional Challenges

The original federal Stolen Valor Act was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court for being too broad and violating First Amendment free speech protections ^{[1] [2]}. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it restricted free speech, but left room for Congress to revise the act and make it more specific ^[2]. The American Legion National Commander has called for Congress to pass a new version of the act that would stand up to constitutional scrutiny, suggesting a more narrowly tailored bill focusing on those who lie about military awards for personal gain ^[1].

State-Level Implementation

Several states have enacted their own stolen valor legislation with varying approaches:

• Arizona: The state passed a Stolen Valor Act that increases penalties for people who impersonate veterans to get benefits or falsely claim military service or honors for personal or political gain ^{[3] [4]}. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Walt Blackman, a veteran, and had near-unanimous support, though it faced initial opposition from Sen. Wendy Rogers ^[3].
• Florida: The Senate unanimously passed a measure making it a third-degree felony for anyone misrepresenting their military service, with the bill aimed at protecting the "sanctity of the uniform" ^[5]. Notably, the law applies to people wearing service uniforms as Halloween costumes but gives performing actors an exemption ^[5].
• Missouri: The state has an active Stolen Valor Act, as evidenced by the case of William Clark, who was charged under Missouri's law for falsely representing himself as an Army veteran ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Constitutional Concerns and Opposition

The analyses reveal significant constitutional debate around stolen valor laws. Rep. Alex Kolodin was the lone "nay" vote on Arizona's bill, citing concerns about judging political speech within the context of criminal law ^[4]. This highlights the tension between protecting military honor and preserving free speech rights.

Veteran Community Division

While some veterans strongly support these laws, others are outraged by them ^[4]. This division within the veteran community itself suggests that stolen valor legislation is not universally embraced by those it purports to protect.

Broader Cultural Impact

The term "stolen valor" has evolved beyond its legal definition to encompass public perception of military service and the importance of honesty in representing one's service record ^[7]. This broader cultural meaning affects how society views military service authenticity, particularly during election cycles.

Enforcement Variations

The analyses show that different states have taken varying approaches to penalties and scope. Florida's law specifically addresses costume wearing while exempting actors ^[5], while Arizona focuses on benefits fraud and political gain ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question asking for "specifics of stolen valor laws in the United States" is neutral and factual in nature, containing no apparent misinformation or bias. However, the question's framing could benefit from acknowledging that:

• There is no current federal stolen valor law in effect due to the Supreme Court's constitutional ruling ^{[1] [2]}
• The legal landscape is fragmented across state jurisdictions with varying approaches and penalties
• The laws face ongoing constitutional challenges regarding First Amendment protections
• There is division within the veteran community about the appropriateness and effectiveness of such legislation

The question appropriately seeks factual information about existing laws rather than making claims about their necessity or effectiveness.