The Supreme Court stole the headlines for a short while today with the news that they would agree to hear a case involving Affirmative Action and the admission to public universities. Arguments will begin in October and, due to Justice Elena Kagan choosing to sit this case out (she served as the solicitor general when the case was originally brought to appeal, thus creating a conflict of interest) it seems as though Affirmative Action as we know it in public schools will be no more. Justice Kennedy, the always crucial swing vote in the Court, tends to side with the Conservatives in social issues, which will most likely create a 5-3 ruling, deeming race as a factor in admitting students to public universities as unconstitutional. But that is a conversation for a few months from now, and that's also only a prediction. What seemed to fly under the radar, though, is an interesting case that will begin oral arguments tomorrow morning.
When is lying considered a crime? Seems like a ludicrous question, I know, but can a lie be so severe that it can trigger legal action? What if that lie sullies our prestigious armed forces? That will surely stir up some emotions.
That is exactly what Xavier Alvarez did. While running for public office in California, Alvarez's campaign was strongly based on the fact that, not only did he serve valiantly for our military, but he also received the highest military award one can - the Congressional Medal of Honor. Alvarez won the election. But years later, come to find out, Alvarez lied about the whole thing. He never served, let alone won the medal. According to the Stolen Valor Act of 2006, Alvarez broke the law by, "falsely represent[ing] himself or herself, verbally or in writing," as a recipient of a military award. Alvarez, however, claims this violates the First Amendment and his right to free speech.
That damned First Amendment and all the trouble it causes! I speak facetiously, of course, because free speech is something that Americans have prided themselves on for hundreds of years. It separates us from totalitarian governments that do not allow citizens to express themselves. It's part of our liberty as an American. But with the good, comes the bad.
No matter how vile, or evil, or inappropriate one speaks at times, the right to free speech has repeatedly been protected over the years. Roth v. United States (1957) was one case in which the Supreme Court decided that 'obscene' speech is not protected by the First Amendment, however, the definition of 'obscene' has morphed entirely since then. Other than Roth, free speech has been protected for the Ku Klux Klan (Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)), anti-war and anti-government rhetoric (Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) & United States v. O'Brien (1968)), and even homophobic protesting on a sidewalk (Snyder v. Phelps (2011)).
This is the first time, I believe, that 'lying' has specifically been the topic of debate in the Supreme Court regarding the First Amendment, so it's difficult to look at the case from a point of precedent. However, I just can't see how the Supreme Court can rule that the act of lying is deemed illegal. It would alter the entire way Americans view free speech. This is different than lying under oath or writing fraudulent information on a government document. Alvarez's actions, as grossly fabricated as they were - he lied about being in three helicopter crashes and being shot by 'the same guy' in battle multiple times - still seem to be protected by free speech.
If the Supreme Court were to set a precedent, claiming that lying is no longer protected, then the First Amendment would surely crumble under itself. The only way Alvarez could probably lose this case, would be if the Court ruled that only when speaking about the military may one not be able to lie. But still, this is WAY too broad of a statute to rule on. The First Amendment is one that has been heralded as our Constitution's greatest achievement, but sometimes people mistreat it, despite it's positive intentions. Alvarez is one of those people. Despite his despicable actions, I just can't imagine the Supreme Court ruling against his claim.
