US Supreme Court Considers Right to Claim Honours Case

[The Chief]

Over the years, undocumented claims to honours have featured strongly
in the discussions on rec.heraldry, and to a lesser extend on ATR. It
may interest regulars, therefore, that the US supreme court has taken
up precisely such a case - apparently some chap claimed to have been
awarded a "medal of honour," or somesuch, without this being factually
true. The NYT thinks this is not a problem, and that the law under
which the chappie was prosecuted should be struck down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/opinion/is-there-a-right-to-lie.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Regards,
The Chief

[Turenne]

Post by The Chief
Over the years, undocumented claims to honours have featured strongly
in the discussions on rec.heraldry, and to a lesser extend on ATR. It
may interest regulars, therefore, that the US supreme court has taken
up precisely such a case - apparently some chap claimed to have been
awarded a "medal of honour," or somesuch, without this being factually
true. The NYT thinks this is not a problem, and that the law under
which the chappie was prosecuted should be struck down.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/opinion/is-there-a-right-to-lie.htm...
Regards,
  The Chief

It's an interesting case. I seem to remember several years ago an
individual in America wearing a host of medals to which he was not
entitled. He was prosecuted.

The Supreme Court in this case is making a clear distinction between
1) 'saying' you have a Medal of Honour' 2) Stating you have a Medal of
Honour for the purposes of deception/fraud etc. and 3) 'Wearing'
medals to which you are not entitled.

1) seems to be legal, 2) isn't and 3) probably isn't.

RL

[e $$iri k_1]

Post by Turenne
It's an interesting case. I seem to remember several years ago an
individual in America wearing a host of medals to which he was not
entitled. He was prosecuted.
The Supreme Court in this case is making a clear distinction between
1) 'saying' you have a Medal of Honour' 2) Stating you have a Medal of
Honour for the purposes of deception/fraud etc. and 3) 'Wearing'
medals to which you are not entitled.
1) seems to be legal, 2) isn't and 3) probably isn't.
RL

Looks more and more like only #2 can be made illegal. Veterans, and others seriously dislike it, but the supreme court has ruled time and again that any noise, utterance, curse or outright lie in any language is protected freedom of speech in this country. Even protesting a funeral; including an ex-military funeral or little girls killed in a amish school house by a deranged gunman.

On a related note, the judges who made that decision are addressed as "your honor".

[RJO]

Post by The Chief
Over the years, undocumented claims to honours have featured strongly
in the discussions on rec.heraldry...

Interested readers will find good coverage of this story on the NPR
website here:

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/22/147211850/can-i-won-the-medal-of-honor-get-you-jailed

(Along with a fine photo of the medal and its ribbon.)

Post by The Chief
apparently some chap claimed to have been
awarded a "medal of honour," or somesuch, without this being factually true

You must be some kind of foreigner. ;-)

(Remember, I said light-heartedly.)

In the US, it's not "a medal of hono(u)r," it's The Medal of Honor,
because there's no other somesuch. The Medal of Honor is presented
personally by the President in the name of the Congress and is the
country's highest military award for valo(u)r. There's a rather good
wikipedia page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor

The UK counterpart, I suppose would be a Victoria cross, or somesuch.

Cheers,

RJO

[Turenne]

Post by RJO

Post by The Chief
Over the years, undocumented claims to honours have featured strongly
in the discussions on rec.heraldry...

Interested readers will find good coverage of this story on the NPR
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/22/147211850/can-i-won-the-medal-of-honor-get-you-jailed
(Along with a fine photo of the medal and its ribbon.)

Post by The Chief
apparently some chap claimed to have been
awarded a "medal of honour," or somesuch, without this being factually true

You must be some kind of foreigner. ;-)
(Remember, I said light-heartedly.)
In the US, it's not "a medal of hono(u)r," it's The Medal of Honor,
because there's no other somesuch. The Medal of Honor is presented
personally by the President in the name of the Congress and is the
country's highest military award for valo(u)r. There's a rather good
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor
The UK counterpart, I suppose would be a Victoria cross, or somesuch.

I wonder what 'hono(u)r' George Washington was referring to when he said "Should any who are not entitled to the honor, have the insolence to assume the badges of them, they shall be severely punished,"

What medals or honours were conferred by the American government in 1782 when Washington said the words (above)?

I've seen one portrait of Washington in uniform where he is wearing a blue sash, but other the The Garter, I haven't got a clue what's it's supposed to signify.

RL

[colt saa]

Post by Turenne
I wonder what 'hono(u)r' George Washington was referring to when he said "Should any who are not entitled to the honor, have the insolence to assume the badges of them, they shall be severely punished,"
What medals or honours were conferred by the American government in 1782 when Washington said the words (above)?

More than likely it was the "Badge of Military Merit" which was a
instituted in 1782. Today it is called The Purple Heart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badge_of_Military_Merit

WAIT! I found the full quote --- apparently it was service stripes/
chevrons of which he was speaking:

"The George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799.
George
Washington, August 7, 1782, General Orders (1782-08-07). Retrieved on
2006-10-01.

Honorary Badges of distinction are to be conferred on the veteran Non
commissioned officers and soldiers of the army who have served more
than
three years with bravery, fidelity and good conduct; for this purpose
a
narrow piece of white cloath [sic] of an angular form is to be fixed
to the
left arm on the uniform Coat. Non commissioned officers and soldiers
who
have served with equal reputation more than six years are to be
distinguished by two pieces of cloth set in parellel [sic] to each
other in
a simular [sic] form; should any who are not entitled to these honors
have
the insolence to assume the badges of them they shall be severely
punished.
On the other hand it is expected those gallant men who are thus
designated
will on all occasions be treated with particular confidence and
consideration. George Washington's General Orders of August 7, 1782

[Retrieved from http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/SAR-TALK/2007-10/1192055643
on 1 Mar 2012]

[colt saa]

The quote applied to ONLY the "narrow piece of white cloth of an
angular form" service stripes:

General Orders Hqts. Newburgh
Wed. Aug. 7, 1782 Parole – Winchester Countersign York, Lancaster

Honorary Badges of distinction are to be conferred on the veteran
Noncommissioned officers and soldiers of the army who have served more
than
three years with bravery, fidelity and good conduct; for this purpose
a
narrow piece of white cloth of an angular form is to be fixed to the
left arm
on the uniform coat. Noncommissioned officers and soldiers who have
served
with equal reputation more than six years are to be distinguished by
two
pieces of cloth set in parallel to each other in a similar form;
**should any
who are not entitled to these honors have the insolence to assume the
badges
of then, they shall be severely punished. ** On the other hand it is
expected
those gallant men who are thus designated will on all occasions be
treated
with particular confidence and consideration. The General ever
desirous to
cherish virtuous ambition in his soldiers, as well as to foster and
encourage
every species of Military Merit, directs that whenever any singularly
meritorious action is performed, the author of it shall be permitted
to wear
on his facings over the left breast, the figure of a heart in purple
cloth or
silk, edged with narrow lace or binding. Not only instances of unusual
gallantry, but also of extraordinary fidelity and essential service in
any
way shall meet with a due reward. Before this favor can be conferred
on any
man, the particular fact, or facts, on which it is to be grounded must
be set
forth to the Commander-in-chief accompanied with certificates from the
commanding officers of the regiment and brigade to which the candidate
for
reward belonged, or other incontestable proofs, and upon granting it,
the
name and regiment of the person with the action so certified are to be
enrolled in the book of merit which will be kept at the orderly
office. Men
who have merited this last distinction to be suffered to pass all
guards and
sentinels which officer are permitted to do. The road to glory in a
patriot
army and a free country is thus open to all. This order is also to
have
retrospect to the earliest stages of the war, and to be considered as
a
permanent one.

[gregs talkin]

Post by Turenne

Post by RJO

Post by The Chief
Over the years, undocumented claims to honours have featured strongly
in the discussions on rec.heraldry...

Interested readers will find good coverage of this story on the NPR
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/22/147211850/can-i-won-the-medal-of-honor-...
(Along with a fine photo of the medal and its ribbon.)

Post by The Chief
apparently some chap claimed to have been
awarded a "medal of honour," or somesuch, without this being factually true

You must be some kind of foreigner.  ;-)
(Remember, I said light-heartedly.)
In the US, it's not "a medal of hono(u)r," it's The Medal of Honor,
because there's no other somesuch. The Medal of Honor is presented
personally by the President in the name of the Congress and is the
country's highest military award for valo(u)r. There's a rather good
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor
The UK counterpart, I suppose would be a Victoria cross, or somesuch.

I wonder what 'hono(u)r' George Washington was referring to when he said "Should any who are not entitled to the honor, have the insolence to assume the badges of them, they shall be severely punished,"
What medals or honours were conferred by the American government in 1782 when Washington said the words (above)?
I've seen one portrait of Washington in uniform where he is wearing a blue sash, but other the The Garter, I haven't got a clue what's it's supposed to signify.
RL- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Washington was referring to the plural of "badges" of military
honor.

[Turenne]

What then, is Washington wearing here?

Loading Image...

I'd hate to think that he was wearing an order to which he was not entitled!

RL

[h***@yahoo.com]

Post by Turenne
What then, is Washington wearing here?
http://www.myhero.com/images/guest/g210271/hero51302/g210271_u57156_George_Washington2.jpg
I'd hate to think that he was wearing an order to which he was not entitled!
RL

"To prevent mistakes, the General Officers and their aides-de-camp will be distinguished in the following manner: The Commander-in-Chief by a light blue ribband, worn across his breast, between his coat and waistcoat; the major and brigadier generals by a pink ribband worn in a like manner; the Aides-de-Camp by a green ribband." - General Order of 14 July 1775

[Turenne]

Post by h***@yahoo.com
"To prevent mistakes, the General Officers and their aides-de-camp will be distinguished in the following manner: The Commander-in-Chief by a light blue ribband, worn across his breast, between his coat and waistcoat; the major and brigadier generals by a pink ribband worn in a like manner; the Aides-de-Camp by a green ribband." - General Order of 14 July 1775

Brilliant answer! Thanks

RL