In United States v. Alvarez, Xavier Alvarez claimed that he was a retired marine who had received the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1987 for being wounded repeatedly by the same person in combat. These claims were made in an attempt to have him gain more respect from his peers. The claim was that Alvarez had violated the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 states that there are protections against claiming to have received some type of military honor, such as the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards (GovTrack). The Government stated that there was first amendment value applicable to Alvarez’s false statements, and that his statements caused harm to others. By making this statement, it was argued that the value of the award of Honor would drop and that this type of false speech falls under the same category as speaking falsely on behalf of the government or as a government official. However, since his statements were not made with the intention of financial benefits or special treatment, his false claims may not be illegal because they were made for the purpose of gaining respect. The case was decided 6-3 in favor of Alvarez. The Supreme Court ruled the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined in a plurality opinion. The plurality stated that freedom of speech under the First Amendment protects lying and false statements. Although the lies are frowned upon and socially unacceptable, the First Amendment protects those types of statements. With the application of strict scrutiny to this case, the Justices within the plurality found that the Stolen Valor Act was very broad and if it had more specific restric... ... middle of paper ... ... to Barnum, people who have awards such as the Purple Heart and Medal of Honor effect not only those who hold them, but those that see others wearing them. Being a decorated veteran will change another person’s perspective of someone, even without meeting him or her previously. Barnum argues that these lies are detrimental to society and the government needs to do its job to protect its symbols and awards (Barnum, 849). Works Cited Speech Restrictions That Don't Much Affect the Autonomy of Speakers [comments] Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 27, Issue 2 (Fall 2011), pp. 347-360 Volokh, Eugene 27 Const. Comment. 347 (2010-2011) False Valor: Amending the Stolen Valor Act to Conform with the First Amendment's Fraudulent Speech Exception [article] Washington Law Review, Vol. 86, Issue 4 (December 2011), pp. 841-874 Barnum, Jeffrey C. 86 Wash. L. Rev. 841 (2011)
In an article written by a Senior student they discuss a monumental moment in Mexican American history concerning equality in the South. The student’s paper revolves around the Pete Hernandez V. Texas case in which Hernandez receives a life in prison sentence by an all white jury. The essay further discusses how Mexican Americans are technically “white” americans because they do not fall into the Indian (Native American), or black categories and because of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848. The student’s paper proceeds to discuss the goals connecting the Hernandez V. Texas case which was to secure Mexican American’s right within the fourteenth amendment [1].
1. Was Terminiello's right to free speech, which is protected under the Federal Constitution, violated, as applied in this case?
Attempt by Congress to strike a balance between society's need for protection from crime and accused right to adequate proce...
United States v. O’Brien is a landmark case regarding individuals’ freedom of speech. In this case, O’Brien burned his draft card to express his opposition to the Vietnam War. O’Brien was arrested for violating a federal statute that prohibited the destruction of draft cards. The Supreme Court had to determine whether symbolic speech was protected under the Constitution. The Court used certain methods, which became known as the O’Brien test to uphold the federal statute.
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
On January 30, 1970 in Leominster, Massachusetts two police officers approached Valarie Goguen, a Massachusetts man, and questioned him for wearing a small American Flag sewn on to the seat of his pants. Goguen who was with a group of people, was not demonstrating or protesting.There was no protest at the time being conducted by other individuals. The next day the officers arrested Goguen for violating a Massachusetts state statute decreeing that it was illegal to “publicly mutilate, trample upon, deface or treat contemptuously of the flag of the United States”. Goguen was convict...
A V Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th ed 1964) 40.
LoFaso, Alan. "REVIEW OF SELECTED 1998 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION."McGeorge Law Review (1999): n. pag. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 12 Nov. 2013
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Fields, Gary. "New Washington Gun Rules Shift Constitutional Debate." Wall Street Journal. 17 May. 2010: A. 1. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
Although the statute was modeled after the Miller test, it still faces First Amendment concerns. First, what are "pr...
[4] Hickok, Eugene Jr., ed. The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding. Virginia: University Press of Virginia, 1991
pp. pp. pp Kay, H. H. (2004, Jan). Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Professor of Law.
Alvarez. Alvarez falsely claimed to have been awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor. While claiming to have been awarded military medals can be up to one year imprisonment on a misdemeanor charge, with the Congressional Medal of Honor it tacks on another three year sentence. He was convicted to three years of probation, had to pay five thousand dollars in fines, along with four hundred and sixteen hours of community service as well as a one hundred dollar special assessment fee. Alvarez went on to appeal his case asking that the case be dismissed due to the fact that it violated his constitutional right of freedom of speech, the courts then argued that false statements where not covered under the first amendment. It was later contended that you can’t pick and choose which false statements can be covered. Alvarez’s appeal was upheld because the court found that his conviction violated his first amendment right to freedom of
Odendahl, M. (2012, August 1). Indiana State Bar Association. Indiana Legal News. Retrieved February 15, 2014, from http://www.theindianalawyer.com/author?authorId=675