Well, he lied. In fact, he violated the the Stolen Valor Act, which states that it is illegal to falsely claim to own a U.S. military award and to use it for personal gain. This act reminds me a lot of the court case New York Times v. Sullivan and the ruling about actual malice since people will only by charged of crime if they knowingly claimed to have received such an award and if this action "causes imminent harm to another person or the government."
All the Supreme Court justices, except Justice Sonia Sotomayor, seem to be against Alvarez and want to penalize him for lying despite Alvarez's lawyer's belief that prosecuting a person based on his or her outrageous claims goes against the 1st Amendment and hinders free-speech.
But if Alvarez is convicted, what about the politicians who lie about their accomplishments? Should we be allowed to prosecute them as well or is lying about owning military-related things far worse than what politicians lie about (college degrees, etc)?
What do you think of the Stolen Valor Act? Is it something worth upholding or is it unconstitutional?
2 comments:
I think that the Stolen Valor Act is worth upholding. Mr. Alvarez has already been known to be a liar since he has in the past lied about being married to a Mexican celebrity and playing for the Detroit Red Wings. Much of his lies are laughable, but it is criminal when we are talking about receiving a medal of honor. This is obviously a fraud; one cannot impersonate a person (ex: veteran and policemen) to gain benefits. Veterans serve the country honorably by fighting in battles and risking their lives to protect our country. Sometimes a lie like what Mr. Alvarez made up hurts other or risks other lives which make it a crime.
While I entirely agree with the moral intention of the Stolen Valor Act, it does blur the line between falsehoods protected by free speech and falsehoods unprotected by free speech. Indeed, in deciding Mr. Alvarez's fate, the justices proposed a series of hypothetical questions to determine whether or not they caused harm. All justices agreed that lying when prompted by the question "Are there Jews hiding in the cellar?" was perfectly valid. However, lying about extramarital affairs or lying during dating did not provoke such easy responses. A Medal of Honor, the highest military decoration a citizen can receive from the US government, does not deserve to have its integrity tarnished by willy-nilly impostors. Nevertheless, banning Alvarez's lies could be the "gateway ruling" that leads to many more laws forbidding lying in circumstances in which the government has no interest. I personally believe that the slippery slope argument is never as valid as its proponents believe it to be (in almost every case), and have such great respect for veterans who truly did receive the Medal of Honor that I am fully in support of the Stolen Valor Act. However, I do not know if there are really enough impostors out there to warrant the backlash the Supreme Court will receive if the justices rule against free speech.
Post a Comment