E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUpdated at 4:15 pm ET The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a federal law called the Stolen Valor Act which prohibits a person from falsely claiming that he has been awarded a military honor.
The case involved Xavier Alvarez who was an elected member of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District Board in Pomona, California.
In 2007 Alvarez said at a public water district board meeting that he was a retired Marine, had been “wounded many times,” and had been “awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor” in 1987.
In fact, he never served in the United States armed forces.
Alvarez pleaded guilty to violating the Stolen Valor Act, but claimed that his false statements were protected by the First Amendment right of free speech.
The majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy said, “The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society.”
Related: Lying about military service? Bloggers have you in their sights
Kennedy quoted from the famous dissent by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1919 Abrams decision: “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”
Kennedy said, "Some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation, expression the First Amendment seeks to guarantee."
Recommended: Supreme Court upholds health care law
Writing a dissent for himself, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Samuel Alito said a long line of prior court decisions recognized “that the right to free speech does not protect false factual statements that inflict real harm and serve no legitimate interest.”
Alito said, “Legitimate award recipients and their families have expressed the harm they endure when an imposter takes credit for heroic actions that he never performed. One Medal of Honor recipient described the feeling as a ‘slap in the face of veterans who have paid the price and earned their medals.’”
Alito said diluting the effect of military awards “harms the military by hampering its efforts to foster morale and esprit de corps.”
Leave a Comment:
All in the military are there to protect and defend the Constitution....
Free speech is part of it. The truth most always catches up with liers and they suffer for it. Military awards and decorations are given to tell something about one military member to other military members. We don't give a damn if anyone else knows about our medals.
MSgt Don...
once again the loony tunes court and daffy duck its leader have struck again
Fraudulent opinion by an incompetent justice.
Could Roberts stand before his fellow citizens and read this incomprehensible ruling aloud ? Not without be embarrassed . He has a very difficult time looking at himself in the mirror.
Hell, worked for obama claiming he was an American citizen.
Lying about military service or awards in a personal or social forum may not have significant consequences & thus may be ignored as irrelevant, but as many other commentaries have indicated, if it results in that party obtaining some gratuitous or public financial gain, the party could be held accountable under fraud, etc. Thus, what many appear to believe is that a lie is not accountable unless it has tangible consequence. But all lies have consequences, and tangible is not always clearly discernable or even well defined; e.g. what is the value of fresh air destroyed by bad development through cumulation phony Environmental Impact Assessments or other window dressing processes.
In the political arena, however, military service is a key criteria for being considered for office by the body politic. In the policy arena of a government meeting or forum, false claims like those made by Alvarez can give moral or experiential authority to the lying official, extending to the level of the beneficent father figure, moving citizens and other officials to concede on issues they might otherwise object to, and/or stifling more timid citizens form even partaking in the discussion, or convincing the gullible from even attending as they rely on their feeling their interests are in the good hands of a patriot. Thus there are consequences to this type of lying; its called gaining influence and power, and is not done without intent by the lying party.
Has everyone forgotten about Presidential Candidate Kerry losing the 2004 election in part because of the controversy created by the Monday morning quarter backing (they weren’t actually there) of the politically motivated Swift Vets and POWs for Truth.
This SCOTUS decision is incorrect for these reasons, and consequently places the burden on the citizenry to eject this party by recall, or suffer there existence until the next election, rather than the lying official automatically losing office upon a conviction. It unfairly places the citizens into a he said, she said conundrum, at the citizens risk of liable. Additionally, it adds another brick to the wall preventing citizen actions of accountability of public officials, whom can say and do nearly anything in their public capacity of official service and are held unaccountable by statutes in most jurisdictions. This lack of accountability is one of the principal reasons this country is falling apart; because a fair proportion of our political office holders are ball-players intent on incumbency, corrupt manipulators, or outright con men, cloaked in the respectability of office, and are consequently free to deceive and act directly against the interests of their communities with impunity.
Re-evaluate your scales people; Lies have serious consequences other than just directly financial. And for those devaluing hurt feelings, rightly or wrongly, the courts have a long history of awarding for mental anguish. The US Constitution does not guarantee the right to lie, nor does the First Amendment, which ironically with respect to this case, protects our right to stand and speak the truth: about government, and society.
What SCOTUS and many commentaries are clearly confused about is the "right to lie" and the burden of combating the lie. It’s a matter of practicality. Who will spend their life and fortune to undertake the task of discovering, disproving, and recovering the lies of a society replete in lying. Society, an extension of personal relationships, is supposed to work at some level on trust: ours does so less and less; falling back onto law and regulation to structure that trust: which are being circumvented more and more.
Society, like individuals, has to draw a line concerning what types or levels of lies can be ignored and those that need to be address. Permitting lying about ones military service and awards for political gain and ongoing influence in office, as SCOTUS has in this decision, is over the line and on the wrong side.
This ruling can be traced back, directly to suspension of the draft in 1973. From that point, the modern draft was no longer in force and all military candidates were "volunteers".
My quotes are to signify that for several years, there still was a common policy, carried out by courts and law enforcement to assist a young man - who was on a destructive path - to "volunteer" for the draft.
Once the universal obligation of the draft was removed, respect for our military servicemen was not honored as much as it had been when all US. citizens were subject to the draft and subject to the dangers our leaders put our soldier in jeopardy to enforce.
yes, all agree its a moral injustice and character flaw to claim a military honor that one has not earned, but to attempt to make such a claim illegal makes you wonder if the sponsor of the law is doing bath salts....I mean really.
A good percentage of the population would be in jail for every white lie to enhance themselves personally and professionally...
What a waste of tax payer dollars.......penalty...shame the person in a public forum as recourse which is done already.
Congress is now "trying" to decide if they should penalize deceptive Political speech. The respect for truth is no longer expected, buy or leadership, so why would people who have little or no moral fiber in the first place - see that self-aggrandizement by stealing the honors of others is no be deal... just apologize, IF or WHEN you are discover and keep everything you stole under false pretense.
I have a University degree, I am a Doctor, I was awarded a medal for uncommon courage, valor, dedication to duty... Oops, my memory was faulty - sorry - I said I am sorry, why do you want to penalize me any further... call it even and let it go. Dude, you people are "trying" to make is such a Big DeaL?
some thing are not funny - and Are a Big deal!
I was torn over this issue. I despise a liar, particularly someone who seeks advancement by lying about their nonexistent military exploits. However, we do have to protect free speech from erosion, even if at times people abuse this right. While these bastards aren't going to be punished legally, that doesn't mean we can't expose them for being frauds and then heap the scorn and ridicule upon them that they deserve.
I have to agree with the court on this one. Plain and simple if someone lies to get special treatment or in the case of the guy that got a position of authority the right recourse is to remove him from his position by the means in place within that organization. He can lie all he wants. And those who elected or appointed him can remove him using "good" efforts. No need for a law when we already have the means.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does, indeed, have protection for "Freedom of Expression."
Many of you who post here under fake names and self-righteously condemn people who find lying reprehensible and whine because the First Amendment does not condemn liars may want to think a little more about what you have written here.
Just in case the Constitutionalists decide to rewrite the Bill of Rights.
This is my real name and I am on Facebook with a profile and many friends.
Don, I cannot criticize or condemn those people who use pseudyms while posting. For some this is the only way they can contribute and feel involved. But your basic premise is sound and is truth in and of itself. The Constitution does indeed protect us and as it is; the document should remain as it is.
Those who want to be incensed and demand that certain acts be removed from protection remember that you might find yourself in a similar situation, for whatever reason; would you want to be forced to face retribution because you misspoke? Somehow, I do not think so. For that reason I repeat, there are remedies within each organization to remove liars and those who spoke to ingratiate themselves without merit, use them and leave the Constitution and Bill of Rights alone. They speak well for themselves.
There are indeed some statements that are NOT protected by the First Amendment.
Look at Wikipedia's comments in this page: #False_statements_of_fact
None seem to prevent anyone from claiming that they served in the armed forces at
any give time, received medals and decorations, etc. Outright lying can be
punished in some circumstances but raises a question of just how important this
kind of braggadocio matters.
Past courts have indeed restricted the First Amendment but you are taking a bit of a
risk when you do that while running for office. This guy apparently did it and
got away with it.....somewhat.
(I know that Wikipedia is NOT an authentic academic resource! It just provided
quick easy information for a comment.)
I just finished watching a PBS special on some of the people who have won the Medal of Honor, and what they did to win it. Xavier Alvarez could not possibly diminish these men and women. Their courage, their sacrifice, and their humility is a shining example of what is the finest of human achievement. Xavier Alvarez is a pathetic imitation. He is nothing. No matter what lies he tells, no matter what honors he claims, he is nothing. The people who actually earned this medal do not need to fear that he can in any way tarnish what they have done.
But these individuals lie about their past to gain benefits in the present...how is it not fraud?
Well it is no wonder they hide behind the freedom of speech act to get away with lies...... What else could politicians hide behind?? ;p
It has been my experience heroes never brag, cowards always boast. Fakers seek the light while the real shine from within. The good constantly give while the bad constantly will take. And if you want to discern the character behind the public man, don't take him at his words. But see if he practices the age old virtue of an honest man.
Windancersong-14... What you say is so accurate. Too many of us are lured by the words being spoken and do not look to the "man" and his actions. A man of ethics and honesty allows his deeds to speak for him and he goes about his life not seeking honor and glory. In addition, the adage, ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS" were writen a long time ago regarding this very matter. Time does not change human nature it seems.
Peeing on enemy soldiers is also an expression, therefore it is OK.
#449 No peeing on enemy soldiers is disrespectful. I said a man of ethics and honesty allows his deeds to speak for him. So do men who have a lack of the above. But a man of honor does not seek glory. Those who you speak of have no honor and would not want anyone to know of their behavior for other reasons. They would be embarrased at the least and in the case of the soldiers you speak of, their actions warrant actions on the part of their superiors. Were I them I would hang my head in shame. Their parents would not be proud to claim them. Would you?