ipl-logo

The Court Case Of Abel Fields

904 Words4 Pages

The purple heart award is one of the most well-known military awards. The purple heart is awarded to someone serving in the United States Military who has been injured or killed by an enemy when at war. This award is one of the highest honors that you can receive in the military and it means a lot to the individuals and families who have received it. The court case United States v. Fields is crucial in holding up the value of the purple heart. Abel Fields attended a city meeting about public safety. At this meeting he claimed to have served in the military for 8 years and that he had received the purple heart award. These statements were false. Abel fields was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act and given a $1,000 fine. Able appealed …show more content…

The law made it a misdemeanor to represent oneself as having received an award that was not actually received. In this case, Fields did not buy, sell, or wear the purple heart but he did lie about his service and about receiving the purple heart. Although the first court case ruled that Fields was guilty because of the stolen valor act, I believe that the stolen valor act in itself is not constitutional. The first amendment allows us freedom of speech. I agree with the Ninth Circuit court in overturning the first ruling. I believe that Fields is protected under the first amendment for freedom of speech. If we made lying or false statements a crime, we would have to prosecute half the country. So where do we draw the line? I agree that Fields’ actions were not acceptable. I also agree that by Fields’ lying about his service and purple heart that the integrity of the award may have been diminished. However, I do not feel that it is constitutional to prosecute Fields based on my …show more content…

In the case of Gertz v. Robert Welch, the court wrote that there is a “social interest in order and mortality.” By protecting the freedom to make false statements we are protecting a person’s ability to create disorder. So this would imply that the Stolen valor act may be constitutional. On the opposing side, in the case, New York Times Co v. Sullivan the courts ruled that although the Times printed an article that had false information about the Montgomery, Alabama police department, that they could not be convicted based on false statements and that the court must prove malice in order to convict. In Texas v. Johnson the court ruled that courts cannot limit freedom of speech solely because the thing being said is offensive or disagreeable to others. I agree with the courts on these last two rulings when comparing them to Fields case because I believe that Fields has the right to freedom of speech even if his speech contained a false statement. I believe that Fields’ statement although morally wrong, was not an act of malaise and did not cause harm to any individual. I think that most people would agree that what Fields said was morally wrong and was hurtful to those who have fought and been injured to protect our freedom here in the United States of

Show More
Related
850 Words | 4 Pages

However, according to Document 1, “Any statement might interfere with the armed forces, incite disloyalty, or obstruct recruiting to the Army became a punishable offense.” So the Espionage Act was passed to punish anyone who conveyed information intended to interfere with the armed forces. The next year, the Sedition Act was passed to make harsh punishments against anyone who spoke false information that interfered with war. When the Espionage Act was made a law, according to Document 2, “Charles T. Schenck was convicted of violating the act by printing and distributing to draftees leaflets that urged them to resist the draft.” One argument used by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Charles T. Schenck was, “When a nation is at war many things which might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its efforts that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight...

Read More
684 Words | 3 Pages

Barron claimed that he has been denied his Fifth Amendment rights when Baltimore did not justly compensate him when they used his property. Mr. Barron took Baltimore to court and won his case and was rewarded $4500 for damages, but his case was then overturn in appellate courts. Mr. Barron then took his case to the highest law in the land. However, Mr. Barron’s case was dismissed by Chief Justice Marshall for several reasons.

Read More
1319 Words | 6 Pages

The Court noted, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." For example, although the law punished actions, such as flag burning, that might arouse anger in others, it specifically exempted from prosecution actions that were respectful of venerated objects, e.g., burning and burying a worn-out flag. The majority said that the government could not discriminate in this manner based solely upon what message was communicated. Finally, the Court concluded that Texas' interest in preventing breaches of the peace did not support Johnson's conviction because the conduct at issue did not threaten to disturb the peace.

Read More
547 Words | 3 Pages

The Free Speech Coalition claims that these prohibitions are overbroad and vague and,

Read More
739 Words | 3 Pages

Tejinder Singh, writer and contributor of Scotus, argues that the stolen Valor Act is "unconstitutional because the government had not shown that the statute is necessary to protect the integrity of the system of military honors . . . [and] the Stolen Valor Act posed a significant—and perhaps unique—threat to protected speech. " On the contrary, the Stolven Valor Act does not violate the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, but instead enforces the appreciation of our soldiers. If Fields had been convicted because he preached that he deserved the Purple Heart and contributed as much as an eight-year veteran of the military, then the Stolven Valor Act would have violated his First Amendment rights because he would be denied to publically share his opinion, and thus denied his freedom of

Read More
912 Words | 4 Pages

The case was settled in a liberal 5-3 decision. The decision was that the Court believed Welsh’s belief to have met the test and so he was entitled to conscientious objector status and reversal of his conviction. Mr. Justice White along with the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Stewart were the ones with a dissenting opinion. Here is a small part of their dissenting opinion, “Whether or not § 6(j) is constitutional, Welsh had no First Amendment excuse for refusing to report for induction. If it is contrary to the express will of Congress to exempt Welsh, as I think it is, then there no warrant for saving the religious exemption and the statue by redrafting it in this court to include Welsh and all others like him.”

Read More
103 Words | 1 Pages

People have the tendency to take the First Amendment for granted, but some tend to use it to their favor. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. His article involves those who misinterpret the First Amendment as their own works or constantly use it as an excuse to express their attitudes and desires about a certain subject matter. He expresses his personal opinions against those who consistently use the First Amendment as a weapon to defend themselves from harm of criticism.

Read More
566 Words | 3 Pages

The first amendment states that “Congress cannot enact laws limiting ”the freedom of speech or press.”’ (Kentucky Resolutions) Again, in short, this amendment is saying that the federal government is not able to pass a law that takes away someone’s right to speak their opinion. Contrary to this amendment, the Federal government did exactly the opposite of what the amendment said was allowed. The acts, passed by John Adams, take away the human right of speaking what is on the mind and using what they say to show them off as a threat.

Read More
616 Words | 3 Pages

He states that this case deals with whether or not opinions are also protected by the First Amendment. He notes that Loraine Journal derives their argument of opinions being protected from Gertz, going on to say that the Supreme Court did not believe that Gertz meant to establish any sort of protection. He then introduces a phrase such as, “In my opinion, Tom is a liar”. According to Rehnquist, the problem with this phrase is that, despite the author claiming it to be his opinion, it can still be interpreted by the reader as being a fact.

Read More
853 Words | 4 Pages

History and Heritage of the Purple Heart Orlando Swinger Senior Enlisted Academy Class 200 Khaki History and Heritage of the Purple Heart Some Sailors wear their heart on their sleeve while others wear their heart on their chest. Senior Enlisted leaders must understand the significance of military awards because they tell the story of a Sailor’s achievements and sacrifices. This paper will cover the origin and the evolution of the Purple Heart award. Body

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
785 Words | 4 Pages

The blog was a personal blog, made by Dr. Foster himself, not used or monitored by Hamilton University nor used in the ordinary course of his profession as a teacher, and wherein he posted information beyond that of the mere academic. (Complaint, R. 5, para. 10). Furthermore, while the district court makes the argument that due to the fact that debate is an “official duty” that is ordinarily “pursuant to” his profession, debate is also an aspect of being a citizen. Garcetti, 547 U.S. 410 at 421. It could hardly be said that since a lawyer’s job is to argue the law, it would thus be true that every time he has an argument about the law he is acting “pursuant to his official duties” of his profession, and the same cant be said to be true here.

Read More
2495 Words | 10 Pages

It further postulates that such commentary on public figures is not only legal, but also healthy — implicitly making the argument that Free Speech is an essential feature of participation in democracy, and that public figures must bow to such caricatures in exchange for the power that society has bestowed upon them. It summarises this belief with a quote taken directly from the Hustler v. Falwell judgement: "At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas. Freedom to speak one 's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty, but essential to the quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. In the world of debate about public affairs many things done with motives that are less than admirable are nonetheless protected by the First

Read More
520 Words | 3 Pages

The government appealed the court of appeals decision to bring to the Supreme Court where it is now. I stand with full belief, and the majority opinion of the Supreme Court that Abel Fields’ conviction be overturned. His First Amendment rights had been violated. Even though he was

Read More
279 Words | 2 Pages

Fields decide to appeal his sentence claiming his first amendment rights had been violated. The court of appeals granted his attempt to appeal the decision. The court of appeals ruled in his favor, and overturned his conviction. After Fields conviction had been overturned, The U.S. government decided to appeal Fields case.

Read More

More about The Court Case Of Abel Fields

Open Document