larso
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- May 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,565
In the wake of reading proudly of Australia's third Victoria Cross in Afghanistan, I came accross this article (four months old at that) which left me a bit stunned. There is a little hope that things will be put right but for today, I'm just left shaking my head.......
Lying About Earning War Medals Is Protected Speech, Justices Rule
By JAMES DAO
Published: June 28, 2012
A divided Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a law that made it a crime to lie about having earned a military decoration, saying that the act was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.
The case arose from the prosecution of Xavier Alvarez under the Stolen Valor Act, a law signed in 2006 that made it a crime for a person to falsely claim, orally or in writing, “to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States.”
Mr. Alvarez, an elected member of the board of directors of a water district in Southern California, said at a public meeting in 2007 that he had received the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award, after being wounded in action as a Marine.
All of those claims were lies, his lawyers later conceded.
Charged with violating the law, Mr. Alvarez argued that his remarks were protected speech under the First Amendment. The trial judge rejected his defense, saying the First Amendment does not apply to statements the speaker knows to be false.
But in 2010, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, reversed that decision, saying that if the law were upheld, “there would be no constitutional bar to criminalizing lying about one’s height, weight, age, or financial status on Match.com or Facebook.”
On Thursday, a six-justice majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court, ruling that the law was overly broad and posed a threat to First Amendment rights by criminalizing speech, even when it was knowingly false.
Though the government has a clear interest in protecting the integrity of military honors, the court said, the Obama administration had failed to demonstrate in its defense of the Stolen Valor Act how Mr. Alvarez’s falsehoods undermined the awards system.
“The First Amendment requires that there be a direct causal link between the restriction imposed and the injury to be prevented,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. “Here, that link has not been shown.”
A concurring opinion written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer and joined by Justice Elena Kagan agreed that criminal prosecution of false statements could have a chilling affect on public debate. But Justice Breyer also provided possible templates for rewriting the act, saying it had “substantial justification.”
“The First Amendment risks flowing from the act’s breadth of coverage could be diminished or eliminated by a more finely tailored statute,” Justice Breyer wrote. “For example, a statute that requires a showing that the false statement caused specific harm or is focused on lies more likely to be harmful or on contexts where such lies are likely to cause harm.”
In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that there had been “an epidemic of false claims about military decorations,” which Congress had reasonably concluded were “inflicting real harm on actual medal recipients and their families.”
He was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
“By holding that the First Amendment nevertheless shields these lies,” Justice Alito wrote, “the court breaks sharply from a long line of cases recognizing that the right to free speech does not protect false factual statements that inflict real harm and serve no legitimate interest.”
Thursday’s ruling by the court was somewhat surprising. During oral arguments in February, most of the justices seemed to accept that the First Amendment did not protect calculated falsehoods that caused at least some kinds of harm and that the government did have a substantial interest in protecting the integrity of its system of military honors.
First Amendment advocates hailed the decision.
“The First Amendment reserves to individual citizens, not the government, the right to separate what is true from what is false, and to decide what ideas to introduce into private conversation and public debate,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union.
But many veterans organizations expressed dismay, saying that criminal prosecution was the only way to deter false claims about military awards. The act called for fines and imprisonment of up to one year.
Mark Seavey, a lawyer who is the new-media manager for the American Legion, said he was confident that a more narrowly drawn Stolen Valor bill would easily pass Congress.
“It’s not a good day for us, but it’s not Black Thursday,” he said.
A bill that would make it illegal to knowingly misrepresent military service with the intent of obtaining “anything of value” was introduced in Congress last year by Representative Joe Heck, Republican of Nevada.
Mr. Heck contends that his bill will pass constitutional muster because it does not attempt to restrict speech but instead prohibit a type of fraud.
Lying About Earning War Medals Is Protected Speech, Justices Rule
By JAMES DAO
Published: June 28, 2012
A divided Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a law that made it a crime to lie about having earned a military decoration, saying that the act was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.
The case arose from the prosecution of Xavier Alvarez under the Stolen Valor Act, a law signed in 2006 that made it a crime for a person to falsely claim, orally or in writing, “to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States.”
Mr. Alvarez, an elected member of the board of directors of a water district in Southern California, said at a public meeting in 2007 that he had received the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award, after being wounded in action as a Marine.
All of those claims were lies, his lawyers later conceded.
Charged with violating the law, Mr. Alvarez argued that his remarks were protected speech under the First Amendment. The trial judge rejected his defense, saying the First Amendment does not apply to statements the speaker knows to be false.
But in 2010, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, reversed that decision, saying that if the law were upheld, “there would be no constitutional bar to criminalizing lying about one’s height, weight, age, or financial status on Match.com or Facebook.”
On Thursday, a six-justice majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court, ruling that the law was overly broad and posed a threat to First Amendment rights by criminalizing speech, even when it was knowingly false.
Though the government has a clear interest in protecting the integrity of military honors, the court said, the Obama administration had failed to demonstrate in its defense of the Stolen Valor Act how Mr. Alvarez’s falsehoods undermined the awards system.
“The First Amendment requires that there be a direct causal link between the restriction imposed and the injury to be prevented,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. “Here, that link has not been shown.”
A concurring opinion written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer and joined by Justice Elena Kagan agreed that criminal prosecution of false statements could have a chilling affect on public debate. But Justice Breyer also provided possible templates for rewriting the act, saying it had “substantial justification.”
“The First Amendment risks flowing from the act’s breadth of coverage could be diminished or eliminated by a more finely tailored statute,” Justice Breyer wrote. “For example, a statute that requires a showing that the false statement caused specific harm or is focused on lies more likely to be harmful or on contexts where such lies are likely to cause harm.”
In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that there had been “an epidemic of false claims about military decorations,” which Congress had reasonably concluded were “inflicting real harm on actual medal recipients and their families.”
He was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
“By holding that the First Amendment nevertheless shields these lies,” Justice Alito wrote, “the court breaks sharply from a long line of cases recognizing that the right to free speech does not protect false factual statements that inflict real harm and serve no legitimate interest.”
Thursday’s ruling by the court was somewhat surprising. During oral arguments in February, most of the justices seemed to accept that the First Amendment did not protect calculated falsehoods that caused at least some kinds of harm and that the government did have a substantial interest in protecting the integrity of its system of military honors.
First Amendment advocates hailed the decision.
“The First Amendment reserves to individual citizens, not the government, the right to separate what is true from what is false, and to decide what ideas to introduce into private conversation and public debate,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union.
But many veterans organizations expressed dismay, saying that criminal prosecution was the only way to deter false claims about military awards. The act called for fines and imprisonment of up to one year.
Mark Seavey, a lawyer who is the new-media manager for the American Legion, said he was confident that a more narrowly drawn Stolen Valor bill would easily pass Congress.
“It’s not a good day for us, but it’s not Black Thursday,” he said.
A bill that would make it illegal to knowingly misrepresent military service with the intent of obtaining “anything of value” was introduced in Congress last year by Representative Joe Heck, Republican of Nevada.
Mr. Heck contends that his bill will pass constitutional muster because it does not attempt to restrict speech but instead prohibit a type of fraud.
