Stolen Valor Act: The Case Of US V. Alvarez

With every serviceman in the military a comradery and pride should be associated with the accomplishment of their service and duty to their country. Though in the instance where one claims these achievements without the proper experience to claim afoot these acclaimed respects from service to the country. This scenario was enacted and revealed through the case of United States v. Alvarez where Xavier Alvarez was deemed in violation of the Stolen Valor Act (2005) for the events that occurred at a board meeting between two water districts where Alvarez spoke. The Stolen Valor Act was meant to protect those who had served in the United States Military from having their accomplishments falsely claimed by others, which Alvarez in fact did. As he

opened with a statement regarding himself as a marine with the Congressional Medal of Honor. These false claims made laden to the burden that anyone who has or is currently serving in the military would scorn with disapproval. Though the remaining issue was that the Stolen Valor Act in theory limited not only Xavier Alvarez’s freedom of speech but also limited the rest of the citizens freedom of speech.

As in fact these statements made by Alvarez were false and could be considered damaging to some, the statements inherently were made as an appeal to ethos for the respective boards at the meeting. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional due to the reason that it restricted citizens freedom of speech that did not pose a greater threat to society. The ruling made by the Supreme Court was correct as the Stolen Valor Act only placed a limitation on speech regarding false claims against prior service and medals awards by the United States government. These false claims inherently do not affect to majority of the public as they are only an additional statement added on to increase the chances of persuasion of information being presented as a credible source. As even if the source was credible in instance of actual use without certificate and/or acknowledgement from the United States there is no value that can be gained from making these false statements. Since the statements are inherently false programs and benefits for veterans cannot be used without proof of service, these false claims hold no

standing.
The statements that Alvarez made at the joint meeting between the two water authorities was meant to be an appeal towards Mr.

Alvarez’s credibility as a previous serviceman. Though the instance of this speech inherently was false from the initial claim. As not only was the claim made at the time false but it was also illegal under the Stolen Valor Act. “Respondent’s claim to hold the Congressional Medal of Honor was false. There is no room to argue about interpretation or shades of meaning.” (United States v. Alvarez, 2012) The false nature of Alvarez’s lie was undoubted though that was exactly what spurred the questioning of why it was false. The Stolen Valor Act’s sole purpose was to limit speech that could defame those who hold the congressional medal of honor. Being the highest honor that can be awarded to any serviceman in the United States. Being the ultimate honor can also vary from what is considered the highest honor by the public. As an individual’s scale of what the pinnacle of honors is can vary based on different factors surrounding that individual’s life. “But freedom of speech, just like many constitutional concepts, has come to mean different things to different generations.” (Krutz, 2016) The gap varies between differences of people as times change from generation to generation. Though the remaining fact is that even though false speech has no position in the political spectrum, it does have the right to be protected under the first amendment. As false

statements can be made for purposes other than specifically for causing malice the protection of this speech is essential. “This comports with the common understanding that some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation.” (United States v. Alvarez, 2012) As it also encourages debate so does it cause anger and dissent between others. Knowing that the information is false it can be used for positive purposes but the standing of the information can easily crumble as it is inherently false.
With false speech taking a key point in United States v. Alvarez (2012) the ability for the Supreme Court to rule upon this case is based on the infringement inherent in the Stolen Valor Act (2005). The freedom of speech that the Stolen Honor Act (2005) violated was not speech that was directly meant to cause harm to those it affected. The speech that it restricted was solely meant for upholding a standard for those that have the congressional medal of honor. This decision was made by Congress in 2005 but the issue pertaining to this was that the law did not consider the it was limiting a form of speech which directly conflicts with the first amendment. “The court declared that the First Amendment protects even false statements by the press, as long as those statements are not made with actual malice.” (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan) This was a key section of the restriction the Stolen Valor Act (2005) placed on freedom of speech. As the case persisted with the occurrence of the United States v. Alvarez case there was no intentional or present malice in the statement to which Mr. Alvarez had made at the meeting. This meant the Stolen Valor Act (2005), though with righteous intentions had infringed upon the free speech of which in the form it was used in was not to cause any malice or harm to those who would be affected by it. “Even though the Court found the government’s interest in protecting the integrity of the Medal of Honor “beyond question,” the Court failed to find that the restriction was actually necessary to promote the interest.” (Lieffring, 2013) This difference between what is considered a protection for the common good and the reality of the restrictions put in place are what ultimately led to the Stolen Valor Act’s demise. The purpose for which it had served had unknowingly restricted a fundamental right to United States citizens.
With the falsity of Alvarez’s word being protected by the first amendment the resolution of what was stated by Alvarez is also to be considered. As what Alvarez stated was only an attempt to gain support before he began his speech at the meeting between the two water districts. Though was stated can be considered hurtful to some, as the congressional medal of honor is by no means a simple award. The achievements that had to be made to be awarded it are directly reflective of the sacrifice that those who have achieved it have made. Though was Alvarez said was false, it still is protected as false claims such as the one he used have no truthful effect on those who hold the medal. “There must be a direct causal link between the restriction imposed and the injury to be prevented. The link between the Government’s interest in protecting the integrity of the military honors system and the Act’s restriction on the false claims of liars like the respondent has not been shown.” (United States v. Alvarez, 2012) This causal link is what the Supreme Court was looking for when determining if the speech was correlated to any result of malice from Alvarez’s statement. As the speech that was presented in Alvarez’s while not generally approved still is a form of protected speech. Even though the general opinion on the speech used was in disapproval the type of speech itself still should be protected for the sake of its usage. “organizations like the ACLU support free speech rights regardless of whether the speech is popular.” (Krutz, 2016) The protection of speech even if false still constitutes the right to make statements. As if false statements are not allowed to be used there would be no breathing room for speech to occur from public to private occurrences. The matter of which to base a restriction should be based on the reasoning which the Supreme Court has already deemed, that the speech be said with the intent of malice. As it is theoretically impossible to dictate every false statement said to having malice. “It seems likely that the Court would strike down any attempt to regulate false, nondefamatory campaign speech.” (Lieffring, 2013) As with the nature of false statements the usage of them can vary for multiple reasons the basis on which the statement should be restricted should not be on the sole reasoning that the statement is false.
With the case of Alvarez’s speech at the joint meeting between the two water districts the false statement that he made opening his speech at the meeting meant only to increase his credibility for the rest of the message that he was about to deliver. As it does not qualify for the requisite means under malice the result of case continues to impact what speech is considered to be allotted for limitation. The ruling made by the Supreme Court was correct as the Stolen Valor Act only placed a limitation on speech regarding false claims against prior service and medals awards by the United States government. As the Stolen Valor Act only existed to enforce speech on awarded medals and not speech with any form of defamation, hurtful intent, or malice it violated the first amendment. Though what persists is the issue remaining with the continuing evolution of what speech falls under those categories. As time continues surely there will be more speech limited based on the protection of others while other speech is allowed as it is deemed unconstitutional later. The only unfortunate effect of all of this is that in the gap between when Congress can enact these laws and the Supreme Court repeals them, is to what will occur then.