Stolen Valor Act Pros And Cons

In 2007, the respondent Xavier Alvarez attended a meeting as a board member in Claremont, California, where he introduced himself as the following: “I’m a retired marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor” (United States v Alvarez 1). In fact, Mr. Alvarez had never received said award, nor had he served in the United States Armed Forces. As a result of making said false statement, Alvarez was indicted under the Stolen Valor Act. The Stolen Valor Act prohibits the action of falsely representing oneself as having received any U.S. military decoration or medal. Alvarez’s case was brought before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where he made the claim

Verrilli states, “This is a case in which one of the harms that justify this statute is the misappropriation of the government – conferred honor and esteem, and that is a real” (7). In other words, the Stolen Valor Act’s criminalization of falsities is imperative to preserving the integrity and value of military awards. Allowing individuals to make false statements about possessing a military medal essentially strips away the sacredness of said award. Conversely, Justice Sotomayor made a note that almost every statute the Court has approved contained a harm that caused injury to an individual’s rights, the pecuniary interests that an individual has, or the reputation of others. However, harm in regards to these concepts was not involved in the case presently before the Court, therefore Verrilli’s argument held no contention. Nevertheless, he still advocated that allowing a violation of the Stolen Valor Act to go unpunished only perpetuates the debasement of the value of medals in the eyes of soldiers who actually earned

Alvarez, the Court came to a 6-3 decision, which ruled in the favor of the respondent, Xavier Alvarez. The reasoning behind their decision was exemplified in the plurality opinion of the Court written by Justice Kennedy. He stated, “The Court has never endorsed the categorical rule the Government advances: that false statements receive no First Amendment protection” (Kennedy, Alito, Breyer 11). The government had made the accusation that false statements had no First Amendment value, but the Court rejected that notion fully because false statements help differentiate between a truth and a lie. Also, the Court revoked the government’s argument in which Court should follow precedents in this particular ruling. However, Justice Kennedy was quick to add that in their prior decisions, they have never encountered acts that targeted falsity alone. The Court has been mindful to instruct that falsity alone holds no contention to bring the speech outside the First