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

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

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