ipl-logo

Summary: The Case Of Abel Fields

490 Words2 Pages

In the year 2011, Abel Fields, a California resident spoke at a meeting about public safety, saying that his previous military experience gave him the knowledge to speak to the people with authority. Fields claimed that he served in the military for eight years and received the Purple Heart, a prestigious medal. Later, it was found that Fields was lying. All the claims he made about serving in the military and receiving the Purple Heart were false. Because he lied, Fields was prosecuted and convicted under the Stolen Valor Act. A person that is guilty of violating the Stolen Valor Act could receive a fine, imprisonment up to six months, or both penalties. He was found guilty and was sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000. Fields appealed his decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of …show more content…

Fields, Abel Fields is not guilty, and should not be convicted under the Stolen Valor Act. The Stolen Valor Act is unnecessary because the government may “forbid speech, solely because it is a lie, even if the lie does not harm anyone or anything. Field’s lie did not harm anyone, so he should not be convicted. Also, the first amendment’s original purpose is to empower the public to use free speech. In the case of New York Times v. Sullivan, The New York Times printed an advertisement that accused Montgomery, Alabama police of misconduct, but a lot of the information was wrong, so Police Commissioner, Sullivan sued the Times. The judgement in favor of Sullivan was overturned, and the Times could not be convicted of libel because the courts must prove that a person has acted with malice when making a false statement. The New York Times had the right to make false claims because they were not acting with malice. Also, in Texas v. Johnson, Gregory Johnson was convicted of burning a flag and his conviction was overturned because the “law cannot limit freedom of speech just because the thing being said is offensive or disagreeable to

Show More
Related
308 Words | 2 Pages

During Mr. Fields trial here we drew on two previous decisions made here. One was New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan the court ruled that public officials cannot be

Read More
428 Words | 2 Pages

Sullivan (1964), but higher than the previous state standard where damages may be claimed if defamatory articles were published, Burger disagrees with the court 's rationale. Instead of creating a new approach, Burger states he would prefer to let the law progress "with respect to private citizens rather than embark on a new doctrinal theory which has no jurisprudential ancestry." Although he does not agree with the majority ruling, Burger does find that Gertz was wrongly held accountable. He cites the importance of Sixth Amendment and that lawyers should be viewed as neither positive nor negative. Further, he argues such views would cause lawyers to become selective with unpopular clients.

Read More
1138 Words | 5 Pages

While in the Court of Appeals, Phelps’s argument was that the First Amendment protected their judgment. Court of Appeals agreed to Westboro’s primary argument that the church was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the First Amendment protects Westboro’s speech. The Court says the picket signs were also protected under the First Amendment, because the statements deal with public concern. The jury could not find Westboro

Read More
529 Words | 3 Pages

The appeals court overturned Fields’ conviction. Fields has argued that he is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, granting him the right to free speech. He has also argued that he didn’t harm anyone, and the he didn’t receive anything valuable from his false claim. Fields’ prosecutors are arguing that intentional lies should not be protected, as this is perjury. They are also arguing that lying about receiving the Purple Heart award damages the integrity of the award, and that is makes the award less valuable for actual recipients.

Read More
739 Words | 3 Pages

In the year 2011, 39-year-old Abel Fields attended a city meeting about public safety. During the meeting, he presented a speech where he falsely claimed that he had eight years of military experience and was rewarded the Purple Heart. Because of his lies, he was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act and found guilty, sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000. In his case before the Supreme Court, Fields argued that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional, and that his right to free speech had been violated. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Fields' favor, but the government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court because, according to the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, these fraudulent claims "damage the reputation and meaning of

Read More
1130 Words | 5 Pages

In Dennis v. United States, the defendants were found guilty because their speech was not protected by the First Amendment because it involved the creation of a conspiracy to topple the United States government. It was not until 1957 in Yates v. United States which was ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States that speech which was deemed “revolutionary” or rebellious against the government as protected by the first Amendment as long as it did not pose a

Read More
803 Words | 4 Pages

For example, the 1964 Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States and the 2009 Ricci v. DeStefano Supreme Court cases. In the Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States Supreme Court case, “the owner of the motel argued that the federal government overstepped its authority and violated the 5th amendment. the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government can force businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution” (Civil Rights Act of 1964 Explained). In addition, the 2009 Ricci v. DeStefano Supreme Court case used the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as evidence. “The case consisted of a group of firefighters, who brought suit against the city of New Haven, Connecticut for invalidating a test that would have earned them promotions.

Read More
337 Words | 2 Pages

This case highlighted the First Amendment condemning any limit on free speech. However, during the case proceeding, the Court had dissents for deciding when the government may restrict the First Amendment. The case spread the fact that

Read More
1657 Words | 7 Pages

Injustice The Scottsboro Case shed light on the racial practices expressed in law that made a great impact on the legal system today. The actual victims of the Case did not receive a fair trial due to the color of their skin. The ones who played the victims planned the crime, and their stories made no sense. But like many of the trials during the time it wasn’t based on the actual evidence that was found,or even the defendants ' stories.

Read More
865 Words | 4 Pages

One of these cases is Patterson V. Colorado. Patterson published comics and articles about the Colorado Supreme Court. These comics criticized the judges of that court, and questioned many of their motives. Afterwards, Patterson was charged with contempt. He quickly moved to void the information by citing local law, the Colorado Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution.

Read More
520 Words | 3 Pages

We ruled in the Times’s favor. They didn’t mean to make false claims about the elected official. They had no malicious intent. The other case was Texas v. Johnson. Gregory Johnson burned an American flag in protest.

Read More
995 Words | 4 Pages

Public opposition to this led to O’Brien burning his selective service registration before a large crowd in order to convince them to adopt his anti-war beliefs in 1968. He was then convicted of violating 462b of the Universal Military Service and Training Act which applied to anyone "who forges, alters, knowingly destroys, knowingly mutilates, or in any manner changes any such certificate". O’Brien argument that this violated his right to free speech and served no actual purpose was rejected by the district court. The Court of Appeals found that this was in fact unconstitutional under the First Amendment as singling out special person’s engaged in protest yet still upheld his conviction due to it being a violation to not be in possession of your Selective Service

Read More
279 Words | 2 Pages

The Supreme court accepted the case. Fields attorneys are arguing that the Stolen Valor act is unconstitutional. Field attorneys argued that Fields cannot be convicted because he lied. The First amendment protects speech that does not directly harm others. Fields attorneys claim that Fields had lied about himself, and by lying about himself he only hurt himself.

Read More
148 Words | 1 Pages

Unfortunately when it comes to a public trial like the William Kennedy Smith, and others like it, the story becomes public domain(Hans,1991).The medias ratings go up when we have a public trial that people are really interested in and that means big money for them. The media also has the ability to alter the public’s perception of cases, and hence introduces some bias among the jurors since the media coverage starts before the trial starts. ”Trial by media” can lead to a wrongful convictions or wrongful exoneration's, as well as a different ruling in the court of of public opinion(Hans,1991). 窗体底端

Read More
787 Words | 4 Pages

"The main way our Constitution operates is to protect the basic liberties of the American people by keeping powers, such as the government, in check. Freedom of speech is renowned as an ultimate western ideal along with its counterpart, Freedom of the Press. In Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938), Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes defined the press as ""every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion." " This right has been extended to newspapers, books, plays, movies, and video games. In Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), Freedom of the press was further defined as ""a fundamental personal right"", not confined to newspapers and periodicals.

Read More

More about Summary: The Case Of Abel Fields

Related Topics

Open Document