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:
This was completely expected. As long as you don't commit fraud (obtain benefits, or collect contributions) you cannot be punished by the government for any claims about yourself.
WTF? I just vomited in my mouth. This country is so fu(ked what are we doing? This is disgusting. SCOTUS needs to dig its head out of its collective ass and do the right thing. One good ruling doesn't make all the $hit ones OK.
They couldn't find their ass with both hands and a flashlight!
It is strange that this court would side this way
"It's okay to lie," The Supreme Court. "You can quote us on that."
What a bunch of dishonorable douche bags.
Scotus needs to be impreached for more reasons than this - we need a Congress that will work for the people not against them. The next Congress has a lot of work to do to undue so many wrong actions by 4 conservatives judges. They have lost all my respect and we need to figure out how to impreach them.
So it's illegal to impersonate a law officer, but not a military officer? Seriously??
OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!! Is there not one Justice on the bench with a backbone to say this is NOT what the 1st Amendment was intended for? Many of the authors of our Constitution were military men, many decorated. I am sure they would abhor this "hair-splitting" of the use of the First Amendment. My husband and I are United States Air Force veterans, and my husband is a Bronze Star recipient for his brave actions during Desert Storm. Although he never expected it, HE EARNED IT! The Supreme Court Ruling only cheapens the importance of such awards, just like the Nobel Peace Prize was cheapen when the powers that be decided to give it to President Obama for doing zilch to deserve it.
While I think this dude is a scumbag and loathe anyone claiming service to our country falsely, I don't think we need a law against it. People lie about almost everything. You can't regulate it. Just expose it and take out the trash.
Those who make up tales about their bravery should be sentenced to front line combat duty to make their dreams come true and we would see just how brave they really are. Good cannon fire fodder.
So well then why wasn't he charged with fraud? ??
SCOTUS has once again spoken. Freedom of speech is unquestionably protected by the Constitution, however, that doesn't mean that what you say will still hold you unaccountable to those in the community in which you live. Were I Mr. Alvarez, knowing that I falsely claimed to be a well decorated Marine and claiming title to our nations highest award for valor, I'd be running hard and looking dilligently for a place to hide. His speech may be protected by the Constitution, but his ass belongs to real veterans.
Hellooooooooooo Mr. Alvarez, where are you? There are some veterans that would like to meet with you for the purpose of clarifying your claims of valor.
Those who make up tales about their bravery should be sentenced to front line combat duty to make their dreams come true and we would see just how brave they really are. Good cannon fire fodder.
I can't believe they've done this, this is rewarding all those who gain from from the sacrifice of others, without actually serving. Disgusting Supreme Court.
Seems to me there is a BIG difference between "exaggerated anecdotes, bar room braggadicio and cocktail party puffery" and lying. Saying you were awarded the Medal of Honor and were wounded many times while you a Marine and in reality, you NEVER were even in the armed forces is LYING! If I were to apply for a job and said I had a masters degree from Harvard and in reality I had a GED do you think that perspective employer would consider that an "exaggerated anecdote" or a lie?
What a disgrace. So time to un-f&$k this mess.
This case was won on a hair-thin technicality...no matter how you slice it, this man's ignorant mouth dishonored the whole notion of military service and valor! Why wasn't he charged with "fraud?!" For me, the government was the problem on this one!
Maybe we need to allow free speech for 1st Amendment rights. It is one thing for a young guy to try to impress his girlfriend with B.S., but far different for a public official to abuse public honor. We should be able to make a law that public officials who make such claims are permanently barred from public office.
Some people would claim that the electorate would automatically do this due to loss of trust, but I think we should be able to eject them from office immediately for such an extreme level of disrepect to honorable Americans.
Medals, honors, etc? You gotta earn them, and most of the time the hard way.
As a veteran I personally think this denegrates those that have paid the ulitmate price to provide free speech for the rest of us....allowing any scumbag to represent themselves as ones of honor...disgraceful......shame on you SCOTUS....free speech has limits.....in this case anyway...
I served my country proudly in the U.S. Army for 8 years. I was awarded an Army Accomadation Medal, an Army Achievement medal, and various unit citations. I am proud to have served, and am proud to have sreved with those men I served with, save a few. When some blowhard lyng p.o.s. poser tries to claim he was a Navy Seal, or some Special Forces hero, I use my experience in the service to conjure up e few questions only a soldier would answer correctly. I had a SEAL poser in a bar one night going on and on about his exploits in the "Nam". Once he cooled it down a while I asked him if he ever served any duty in Calfornia. He said he did not. I then asked if he had ever been to Coronado, he had not. I then knocked the lying bastard off his chair and told him and the rest of the bar what I thought of him. He then admitted he was a liar, cried some, and then thanked me for exposing him as a fraud since the lies had been to much for him to bear any longer. Needless to say, he doesn't tell them "stories" any longer.
SirJames perhaps the scotus did us a favor, if it is now a matter of legal right to lie then when the individual falsely states he is a recipient of a military award it is our right to cold cock the son ob a bitch, after all we are expressing our "freedom of speech" to a lying SOS are we not.
The part that most people here are ignoring is that the Supreme Court struck the law down as it is written now; but gave Congress the language they need to resurrect the law and have it withstand Constitutional scrutiny.
It looks like the Supreme Court is 0 for 2 today.
It is a conservative activist court; no?
No.
SCOTUS 2012 is a corporatist activist court, and is kept in power by lying to you and I thru mediums that are no longer impartial players...
The only "slippery slope" is GOP political candidates would have no longer been able to serially lie; akin to present day Myth Romney type speech, and hide behind the flag and their false macho mind-memory unconscious ego(s)
Insofar as this legal American Citizen is concerned COTUS,SCOTUS, and POTUS no longer represents me as a legitimate form of Government.
The supreme court (intentional lower case) has just pissed on every grave in Arlington National Cemetery, Normandy, The Vietnam memorial, and every grave of every military man or woman who died in the line of duty.
There is a right of free speech however there is no right to freely lie, especially when it comes to "Honoring our Military".
There is no way in the world does this abomination called the supreme court reflect common sense interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps we should take the copy in the national archives and build a bonfire on the mall on the 4th of July and have our own Kristallnacht.
This is a disaster for this country!
The Supreme Court was correct in its decision related to military awards, etc.. The "Law" should have been constructed under the fraud statutes and applied only when someone utilizes false claims for substantial gails, or benefits or funds, and not in private conversations covered under free speech. I don't necessarily agree, but speeech should be given the broadest coverage.