February 23, 2012, 9:57 AM EST <\/p>\n
By Laurie Asseo and Greg Stohr <\/p>\n
(Updates with lawyers\u2019 arguments starting in eighth paragraph.) <\/p>\n
Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Supreme Court justices grappled with whether Congress can make it a crime to falsely claim having been awarded a military medal, in a case testing the reach of the Constitution\u2019s free-speech protection. <\/p>\n
Hearing arguments today on the Stolen Valor Act, the justices discussed wartime bravery, high school diplomas and lies people tell on dates. The law punishes people with as much as a year in prison for lying about receiving a medal. A federal appeals court said the law violated the Constitution\u2019s free- speech protection, and President Barack Obama\u2019s administration is appealing. <\/p>\n
A false claim of receiving military honors \u201cdoes diminish the medal in many respects,\u201d Justice Anthony Kennedy said during the hour-long argument in Washington. Still, he and other justices suggested that upholding the law might broaden the kinds of lies the government could sanction, beyond matters like perjury and false statements to a federal agent. <\/p>\n
\u201cWhere do you stop?\u201d asked Chief Justice John Roberts. He asked how the stolen-valor law would differ from making it a crime to claim falsely to have earned a high school diploma, a matter that can be verified just as easily. <\/p>\n
\u201cWhat is the First Amendment value in a lie?\u201d Roberts said later in the argument session. <\/p>\n
\u2018Big Deal\u2019 <\/p>\n
The case involves Xavier Alvarez, one of the first people charged under the 2005 law. That year, he was serving as an elected member of the local water board in Pomona, California, when he said at a board meeting that he served 25 years in the Marines and was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. In truth, he had never served in the military. <\/p>\n
Prosecutors have filed charges under the Stolen Valor Act in 45 cases since the law was enacted, Alvarez said in court papers. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe point of these medals is that it\u2019s a big deal,\u201d U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued in support of the law. For the government to \u201cstand idly by when one charlatan after another makes a false claim to have won the medal does debase the value of the medal in the eyes of the soldiers.\u201d <\/p>\n
Even though people are \u201centitled to be upset by these false claims,\u201d Alvarez didn\u2019t harm anyone and was quickly exposed as a liar, countered his lawyer, Jonathan Libby, deputy federal public defender in Los Angeles. Alvarez\u2019s statements were not the same as an intentional infliction of emotional distress, which could be sanctioned, his lawyer said. <\/p>\n
Legitimate Speech <\/p>\n
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned Verrilli on what sort of harm the law is trying to stop. <\/p>\n
\u201cI too take offense when people make these kinds of claims, but I take offense when someone I\u2019m dating makes a claim that\u2019s not true,\u201d Sotomayor said. <\/p>\n
Conversely, Justice Elena Kagan asked Libby what kind of legitimate speech would be discouraged by the stolen-valor law. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s not that it may necessarily chill any truthful speech,\u201d Libby said, adding that people know whether they\u2019ve won a military honor. <\/p>\n
Since 1923, federal law has prohibited wearing a military medal without authorization. Kennedy and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked how that differed from the speech prohibited by the Stolen Valor Act, and they expressed skepticism when Libby said the 1923 law involved conduct rather than speech. <\/p>\n
False Information <\/p>\n
\u201cThere is real harm\u201d in falsely claiming military honors \u201cand yet I can think of instances where we do want to protect false information,\u201d said Justice Stephen Breyer. <\/p>\n
Justice Antonin Scalia suggested giving a \u201cmedal of shame\u201d to people who falsely claim to have been honored for valor. Roberts said that too would be barred under Libby\u2019s argument because it would be a government sanction for speech. <\/p>\n
Alvarez was indicted for violating the Stolen Valor Act and pleaded guilty, while reserving his right to appeal on First Amendment grounds. Alvarez was sentenced to three years of probation, a $5,000 fine and 416 hours of community service. A divided federal appeals court in San Francisco threw out the guilty plea. <\/p>\n
The case is United States v. Alvarez, 11-210. <\/p>\n
--Editors: Justin Blum, Joe Sobczyk <\/p>\n
To contact the reporters on this story: Laurie Asseo in Washington at lasseo1@bloomberg.net<\/a>; Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net<\/a> <\/p>\n To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n More here: February 23, 2012, 9:57 AM EST By Laurie Asseo and Greg Stohr (Updates with lawyers\u2019 arguments starting in eighth paragraph.) Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Supreme Court justices grappled with whether Congress can make it a crime to falsely claim having been awarded a military medal, in a case testing the reach of the Constitution\u2019s free-speech protection Continue reading
\nMilitary Medals Lies Spur High Court Debate Over Free Speech<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"