As we talk about libel -- communication that tends to harm someone's reputation -- the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a case involving a politician making false claims about military service.
At a public meeting, an elected member of the board of directors of a water utility company in California said he was a former Marine and recipient of the Medal of Honor. The problem was that those claims were false.
He was then prosecuted under the Stolen Valor Act, a federal law that criminalizes lying about military honors.
Read this very good summary of the oral arguments by The New York Times. Pay particular attention to the arguments being made by both sides. Afterward, return here and share your thoughts in the comments section.
With which side do you agree? Be sure to support your answer.
54 comments:
I don't think its right for people to lie about things, especially in regards to military service. I think that is HIGHLY offensive and should be a crime. Who in their right mind would lie about that anyways?
T/H 12:30pm
Alvarez should be punished for lying about being in the military service and claiming that he had recieved the Medal of Honor. Honors like that are for those who truly deserve them, the people who actually fought for our country. My grandpa recieved the Purple Heart because he EARNED it. Alvarez should be ashamed of himself for lying to himself, our country and disgracing the men and women who fight for us.
I do not think that lying about military services is right and should be against the law. If a lie like this is told, the person can benefit from it, and it can also be offensive to others that have served in the military. Claiming something that requires hard work and dedication should be punished.
Alyson Svec
Media Law TH 12:30
I believe Alvarez should be punished in some way for lying about being a Marine and receiving the honor award.
What Alvarez did was wrong. It is disrespectful to those who actually served in the military and he used his false statements to gain the positon of a politician.
I agree with the New York Times brief that argued "most false statements are better addressed by exposing them in the marketplace of ideas than punishing them as crimes."
But, the decision to punish him by the Stolen Valor Act that focused on the significant harm of his actions is justiced served.
Alvarez and his attorney seem to be saying that lying should be protected under the First Amendment. That's insane. People lie everyday and it isn't a constitutional issue. Alvarez lied for one reason--because it could further his political interests. He absolutely should be punished. I have vayring opinions of the military and those in control of it, but claiming service and heroism should be punishable if proved to be false.
What Alvarez did was wrong and i believe he should be punished. Even Alvarez's lawyer is upset with his false claims. The medal of honor is an award that is earned by people in our armed forces which is something Alvarez did not do. By lying about receiving the medal i think Alvarez was trying to appear like a hero the public to further his political stance in society. Being punished for lying about receiving the medal the honor is something i hope the Supreme Court rules in favor of and make it a law so this type of thing doesn't happen again.
Jose Hernandez (Joey)
Media Law
T-TH 12:30-1:50
Lying is never the right route to take, yet everyone usually does it. In this case, it has been more punishable because it deals with the government and military. Lying about being a former Marine can be classified and fraud. It is like stealing someones identity. Although, Mr. Alvarez did not steal anyone's identity, he did lie about his own life. This is especially punishable because respect and honor is something that is earned by accomplishments and not lies. He disrespected professional, political figures and tried to make them look foolish for believing him.
I do not think that Mr. Alvarez’s comment should be protected under his 1st amendment rights. I think his statement is libel because it can cause harm to military members, especially to members who have earned the Medal of Honor. Mr. Alvarez’s lie about earning the medal makes it look like it some sort of joke to earn one. The military should be honored and I think Mr. Alvarez’s claim dishonors them. He should definitely be prosecuted under the Stolen Valor Act.
Emma Lacouture
Media Law T/TH 12:30
I agree with the court's decision to prosecute Alvarez under the Stolen Valor Act. His argument that his remarks were protected by the First Amendment doesn't comply with the situation and the content of his remarks. His interpretation of the First Amendment and the free speech clause is that he can state any falsehood and not be held accountable, when in reality the First Amendment is there to protect individual's opinions and their right to speak freely about them. Receiving a medal of honor is not an opinion, it is a fact; you either did or you didn't serve in the military and receive a medal of honor. There is no room for interpretation unless Alvarez has some form of a mental handicap in which he has a false perception of reality, but he is mentally stable and knew that his remarks would generate some form of an advantage.
I too agree with the courts decision to prosecute Mr. Alvarez under the Stolen Valor Act. Mr. Alvarez knowingly made false claims about being awarded a medal and serving in the military and especially as a public official, I believe he should be prosecuted for libel. The First Amendment does not protect lies that could cause potentially cause significant harm.
Katie Wright MCLaw T&Th @ 12:30
T/Th 12:30
I think the Supreme Court will run into a lot of issues if it begins to differentiate which lies are protected and which are not, but I think that hands-down it should be a crime to lie about military honors. Not only is it morally wrong and offensive to those who have served, but leading people to believe you are a war hero could lead to some risky situations.
Media Law T-Th 12:30-1:50
I am a bit split on this decision. For one this does question whether or not we're steps closer to prosecuting and jailing every liar ever, it might be a slippery slope, but it could possibly happen. I found it perhaps(?) a little sexist that the two female Justices were concerned with relationships.
Under the current circumstances however, I agree that the decision should stand. He tried to use these lies to gain something and should not be allowed to do such. It is a form of fraud and should be punishable.
T-TH 1230
I concur that Alvarez should be held responsible for his false statements. Those who falsely claim to have been in the military or any other type of civil service can benefit from their lies. I mean, it's certainly a crime to impersonate a law enforcement officer. Why not a military service member? And, since Alvarez used the false statements while in a public office, he should be even more worthy of the criminal charge.
TTH 12:30
To think that Alvarez thought he could get away with such a lie is ridiculous and sad to the men and women who are actually fighting for our country. I agree in that Alvarez should be punished for lying about his "fake" military honors. He was trying to further his career and political standing and used these lies to do so. It's clear that there was harm done by his actions because it makes receiving this honor less of what it really is if people like Alvarez will go to such lengths to make up lies about receiving something that never even happened.
Media Law T-Th 12:30
I do not believe that any law or amendment is perfect, and cases like this one proves it. I understand that his speech is protected by the First Amendment, but lying about military honors is downright wrong. His actions do harm others and even degrade sacrifices that many people have given for this country and that they have made for him to even have the opportunity to have free speech. I think what he did is dishonorable and he should be punished for his actions.
Mr. Alvarez argued that his First Amendment rights should protect him in this instance but as the justices argued, and I agree with, that the First Amendment does not protect calculated falsehoods that cause some kinds of harm. And in this case I believe the harm is in the integrity of the honoring system. As another justice stated that his lie diminishes the medal in many respects. The NY Times and other new org. argued in support of Mr. Alvarez stating that most false statements are better addressed by exposing them rather than punishing them. I don' t agree with that statement because although exposing it will cause some punishment for Mr. Alvarez, I also feel that just exposing it is not enough punishment and does not set an example to other people if they get caught in such a lie that as another justice stated he could have possibly gained some value from.
Jennifer S. (ITV - Media Law)
People lie all time, about random things. Lying is not right, but are we speaking ethics here? A girl lies about her weight, a guy lies about his age, a man lies about drinking one night, a woman lies about spending that extra money for that dress, a groom unknowingly at the time will lie to his future wife because one day he will cheat; I am in no way abdicating lying, but stating facts here. SO- he lied, and he has to live with that lie, and while trying to be respected with the lies he told completely turned on him, and people will shun him for it. In an attempt to make himself sound more like a hero, and man of honor he totally degraded himself.
Claire Courtney
T/Th 12:30
Lauren Lanmon
T/TH 12:30
Like Clair said, people lie all the time, how is this lie really different from all of the others that are being told every second? No, he probably shouldn’t have said any of that stuff, but who does it really affect? I think that just by being caught in a lie probably messed up his “image” enough anyways. As you can see by many of the other posts, most that hear about this case are going to tear Mr. Alverez up because he lied about something that many think is a big deal. I also think that this is a petty crime to argue about and waste time in the Supreme Court. People lie about important things all the time how does this lie deserve harsher punishment?
Olivia Gustin
Media Law T/Th 12:30
I understand the argument that making it a crime to lie about military honors can lead to other infringements upon the First Amendment, but I see a distinction between lying about military service and lying about, say, infidelity in a marriage. I agree with what the attatched article says about the government's "substantial interest in protecting the integrity of its system for honoring military distinction." Also, I agree with the argument "that the government may punish false speech that is intended to obtain something of value." For these reasons, I believe it would be appropriate to make it against the law to lie about military service.
I believe Mr. Alvarez should be punished. I find it very offensive that he was at a public meeting and was attempting to gain credibility and prestige by claiming he had been awarded. Unfortunately I think he might not receive the legal punishments we are all hoping for. According to the article, the Supreme Court is mostly concerned with “collateral damages to free speech values that a ruling upholding the law might generate”. Because of this, I think Alvarez will most likely prevail but hopefully a majority of the U.S. will have read or heard the facts of this case, and embarrassment and shame will do significant damage to his reputation and career.
Gabby McGeown ITV Media law Fridays-
I agree that what Alvarez did was wrong and lying about having a medal of honour is horrrible, However I feel like plenty of people lie in order to get jobs. They may lie on there resume by saying they worked somewhere longer than they did or held a higher position than they really did. I am just concerened as the article said that the government can punish people for basically lying to gain something. I understand that this is geared toward politicians but in the future could this be used to gear laws towards everyday people?! Where do we draw the line here? Thats being said I do understand them protecting the intergrity of the military and I think this man deserves some type of punishment, typically if youir employer finds out you lied you would lose your job. He has been publicly embarraased and like it said exposed in the marketplace of ideas. Im not sure that I feel he needs to be criminally punished for lying.
F 11:00 - 1:50
I know many Marine Corps soldiers and veterans and to know that someone has the audacity to lie about receiving such a prestigious honor is disheartening. It's one thing to lie about being in the military, but to also lie about being given a Medal of Honor is completely disrespectful to those who have given up everything to protect and serve this country. It's almost like a slap in the face to all our soldiers in the military.
Taylor Wood T/TH 12:30
In my personal opinion, I think lying about military honors should be punishable by jail time. Our soldiers risk their lives for this country, and they deserve all the benefits they may get because of their service. When someone lies about military honors, it is a huge insult to those who are in the military and retired from service. I agreed most with this statement, “there seemed to be something like a consensus that the government has a substantial interest in protecting the integrity of its system for honoring military distinction.” I believe military members should be given respect for their service, and Alvarez should be punished for his false claim that may have brought him respect.
my father washed his buddies out of bombers with a water hose. lying is not good.
Friday 11-1:50 PM
Lying about being in the military and receiving awards should be both illegal and punishable. It is inexcusable to claim to be a part of something so honorable in order to get ahead in life. Serving this country is such a noble thing to do and Alverez is discrediting soldiers who risk their lives for America.
I believe Alvarez should be punished for his actions. Although there is no way to be 100% sure, his lie about being in the military, and having won a medal, may have won him the position in office.
Not only what he did was cowardly of him, it was also very disrespectful to the men and women who put their lives on the line everyday to protect civilians.
Not cool man. I think that the last statement says it all,
"The New York Times Company and other news organizations filed a brief supporting Mr. Alvarez in the case, United States v. Alvarez, No. 11-210. The brief argued that most false statements are better addressed by exposing them in the marketplace of ideas than by punishing them as crimes. "
In the previous statements like, lying about child being run over by a bus or whether or whether or not Jews are hiding in the cellar shouldn't be punished by the law; not directly. The common people are more powerful in this sense because we can ALL agree that this type of behavior is just not right.
Even as children we are taught that it is moraly wrong to lie and even at a young age we are punished for this behavior. I fell that the same principle should apply even as adults. Especialy when concidering military service and honorary awards.
As most of the posters in this thread have mentioned or implied, Alvarez's actions are ethically reprehensible and highly disrespectful to those who have actually earned these awards. However, I'm not sure that this type of speech falls under defamation because Alvarez's speech does not identify the person being defamed. Rather, Alvarez himself is the subject of the lie, and the damage that occurs to veterans is collateral. A causal chain could be described linking the lie that Alvarez makes to the damages to veterans, but I think that chain may be a bit too much a stretch for tradition libel/slander law to prohibit. It seems that protecting the value of servicepeople's reputations may qualify as a compelling government interest though, (argued along the lines that the government has the duty to create a military, and that this devaluation of military service interferes with that duty) and perhaps if a law was narrowly tailored enough, it may be able to pass strict scrutiny.
-Matt Sheehan: Free Speech, Free Press, and the Supreme Court of the US, T/H 3:20-4:50
Liza Winkler
Free Speech Honors Class
3:30 - 4:50 p.m. T/Th
I think that Mr. Alvarez's actions were obviously way out of line. I don't think it is morally right to lie about participating in our military service or saying you won the highest honor of our military when you didn't. He was obviously exposed as a liar and his true character was revealed that way.
If Mr. Alvarez received votes, favors or compensation from his false accusations that would be an example of real harm that was done to the public by his lies. I believe the Stolen Valor Act should have language in it to where public or political officials or figures can be criminally charged for receiving benefits (money, votes) from lies about military service a person says about themselves or others. If he were to say his statements of being a war hero to his son in private, I do not believe he should be incriminated in that circumstance. Yes, it would be a violation of the Stolen Valor Act as it technically stands now though. I don't believe any speech would be chilled if the law was tailored that way. It would only prosecute those who would lie anyways, but would detain those who are being fraudulent in a public office with taxpayer money/ votes.
I think that the Stolen Valor Act is constitutional and does not violate the First Amendment or threaten to erode its importance. First, in my opinion, lying about military honors is a type of fraud. Fraud should not be protected by the First Amendment. Additionally, I don't think that lying and fraud are usually the same thing. I would consider Alvarez' speech lying if he was telling it to buddies over a beer, but because it was given in a public forum, I consider it fraudulent.
Christopher Green Media Law T/TR 12:30
Jess Gusan
Media Law
T/TH 12:30
When I was first made opinions about this question I immediately thought that this should be illegal because he used this fib to attain a position.
As the article mentions, if they were to prosecute everyone who lied to attain something then there would be about 1 million too many cases to handle. However, I do think that these offenses should be illegal. People should be held to a higher responsibility when talking about military honors, education, and other time consuming accomplishments. The problem with this law would ultimately be drawing a clear line over what is important enough to prosecute and what is not.
I believe that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional.
While the fake claim by Mr. Alvarez (that he had received various military awards for being shot by the same guy five times) is unfortunate, I do not think that it merits criminal prosecution. During the oral argument, the Solicitor General failed to show a strong link between the fake claims of military achievement and any sort of harm, apart from the emotional distaste of the lie.
The Stolen Valor Act seems to punish speech only because it is distasteful, not because it puts anyone at harm. The valor of military medals will not be diminished, in the eyes of the public nor in the minds of its true recipients, because of one person, running for a local office, that reverts to lies to gain political office.
The New York Times was adequate in stating that the Free Press should be responsible for contesting these false claims. Furthermore, the Stolen Valor Act could also have a detrimental effect on the Free Speech value of lying. I believe that lies, while not always good, do have some value in society - for one, lies can lead to a discovery or better understanding of truth. Lies can also be used in appropriate ways. As Justice Breyer implied, it should be appropriate to lie and state "no" to the question of "are there Jews hiding in the cellar?"
The acceptance of the Stolen Valor Act could lead in a slippery slope that diminishes the constitutional value and protection of speech - in this case, speech used to lie.
Christian Penichet-Paul
Free Speech 3:30-4:20
I think Alvarez should be punished in some way for lying about being in the marines and receiving honors. False statements, especially when dealing with the military or other government forms, should not be protected by the first amendment.
If someone can be punished for lying on a resume or job application about committing misdemeanors or felonies, Alvarez should be punished as well.
Obviously, I believe Mr. Alvarez's statement is reprehensible. However, I also believe the New York Times makes a good point when they say, "The brief argued that most false statements are better addressed by exposing them in the marketplace of ideas than by punishing them as crimes." While we can all agree that this was an extremely unethical thing to do, I do not believe the government should have the right to punish Mr. Alvarez for it.
On a similar note, all we are told is that Alvarez made the statement in a "public meeting." If the circumstances were less vague, we might have a better idea of the context of the situation and be able to discern our opinions better.
The above statement is by Robert Cox
Media Law
T/TH 12:30
Kim Castelluccio
Media Law T/TH 12:30
I think that lying about military honors should be punishable because I think that is lying about your identity. I don't understand why someone would lie about that. It is an honor to earn the right to be a medal of honor recipient
i agree, i think you should be punished for lying about military honors. It is wrong and undermines the officers who did in fact earn hard to get those medal of honors.
Alvarez should definitely be punished for lying in court. If he doesn't, this could lead other people to think it is OK. This was also very disrespectful to those who have earned the Medal of Honor.
-Whitney Vick, Media Law, TTH 12:30
I'm not a veteran or has anyone in my family ever been in the military, so I don't really take this personally. Though I do have respect for anyone that gets an award legitimately, lying about it shouldn't be punished. I think being truly labeled as a liar punishment enough. I'm not sure what Alverez was trying to achieve by lying. Maybe get respect or sympathy, but he shouldn't go to jail or pay fines. He should definitely correct himself and apologize but If he doesn't, then oh well.. Don't vote for him or be his friend because you've obviously never lied before.
Joe Morales
T/H 12:30
I definitely don't agree with Alvarez lying about being in the military and receiving "honors". I think it degrades the military men and women who ACTUALLY EARN these honors. I also don't like that Alvarez is using the First Amendment as his defense. It's true Americans have freedom of speech, but it seems kind of like yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater. You have the first amendment right to say it, but really you just shouldn't.
Sarah Lane
Media Law
TTH 12:30
Codi Stone
San Marcos Friday ITV
Although I think what Alvarez did was disgraceful and wrong, I agree that these types of issues are better delt with in the media than as acutal crimes. The media and others will most likely harm him and his reputation severely.
Chris Blackmon
TTH 13:30-1:50
I don't agree with what Alvarez has done at all. There are a lot of people out there sacrificing their lives in the military. I agree that it should be a crime to lie about these types of things.
Steven Waskow
I find myself leaning towards the opinion expressed by the NYT brief. "The brief argued that most false statements are better addressed by exposing them in the marketplace of ideas than by punishing them as crimes." I do not think it was ok to lie as Mr Alvarez did to gain support for himself in the political arena. However, I feel as though this lie was not one in which he was listing a qualification for the position he was trying to win. If he had lied about knowing how to perform the functions of the job and impeded the effectiveness of the agency, that would seem a more punishable offense. As it stands, jail or extreme damages could ruin his life for one lie that was told to gain respect and favor, and that seems extreme to me. He already has faced some punishment with all the time spent in court (with the expenses of a lawyer) and lost face with millions of people. As far as the chilling effect is concerned in regards to the Stolen Valor Act, I do not see how it can extend be built upon to suppress free speech. It seems very specific.
Steven Waskow
I'm still confused by Alvarez's level of sanity, because that's a pretty crazy story to come up with. I believe he was looking for respect from people, so he just made up a story. I believe he should be punished to some degree, and I also think our classmate Christian Penichet-Paul proves solid points in his blog posting.
Casey Willson
T/TH 12:30
Media Law T/Th 12:30
Lying about receiving the Medal of Honor and for that matter, anything in regards to the military service is wrong. It should not be taken lightly. It is disrespectful and offensive to those who have served in the military and those currently serving. By all means, the act of lying about this should be punished and against the law. I agree with the decision to punish him with the Stolen Valor Act.
The previous comment was left by Tiffany Lurate
Jennifer Huey
Friday, 11am
While I agree "that most false statements are better addressed by exposing them in the marketplace of ideas than by punishing them as crimes," I feel the phrase "most false ideas" helps solidify my opinion that Mr. Alvarez should be punished for his lies.
There are many things politicians lie about that can be taken care of of in the public marketplace of ideas. For example, politicians lie about their voting record, drug use, and extramarital affairs all the time. The media makes sure we know all the gritty details. And what harm comes out of it? The politician resigns and/or is made infamous for something out than his/her time in office.
Alvarez's lies were much different. He lied about serving our country - a sacrifice of service that is still held in high regard - and demeaned the reputation and sacrifice of others. When the ultimate sacrifice a military service person can make is death, lying about such service has to equal substantial harm.
Ultimately, as we learned, most abhorrent speech is protected, but not all speech. Just like a person cannot falsify a police report to an officer, Alvarez cannot falsify governmental military service to the people in effort to promote his own political pursuits.
I do agree that Mr. Alvarez does get some type of punishment because the men and women who fight for our freedom deserve respect and the families that lose them because of war but I do agree that it is not a high enough crime to serve time in jail or prison like it would be for murder. He is already known for what he did because of the media and I think that is punishable enough because now everyone will know what he did and he will never get his good reputation back again. He will always be known for he lied about getting the medal of honor.
I think that Alvarez should be punished for lying. People who receive those awards have earned them, these military men and woman have sacrificed a lot for our country, some even their lives. I don't think that there is any time it is okay to lie about receiving a military award.
By no means do I believe what Alvarez did was right or justified, but I can already foresee the United States Supreme Court deeming the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional. The Stolen Valor Act makes it a crime to say falsely that one has “been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States.” Although some might perceive this as disgusting and offensive to the military, it is not certain this lie has the potential to cause real, significant harm. We as democratic society also have a duty to make an educated decision when electing government officials. I don’t think there is a true threat and to place the burden to tell the truth on politician simply opens the door to an array of future issues. Politicians lie, we all know this. In my opinion most would sell their mother up the river if it guarantees a seat in office. I believe the justices will deem that the act violates the First Amendment’s free speech guarantees. Just because Alvarez offensively lied, it doesn’t change the fact that his context is still entitled to protection under the First Amendment.
Daisy Saenz
Post a Comment