The Court Case Of Abel Fields

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

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

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