Educating Young People about the Constitution
Bill of Rights in the News:
The Stolen Valor Act
A federal court of appeals in California recently refused to hear an appeal to the case
U.S.A. v. Alvarez, which held that the Stolen Valor Act was an unconstitutional violation
of the First Amendment. The Act was a piece of legislation, passed in 2006, that made
lying about receiving military medals a federal offense. It was ruled unconstitutional by
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 (the appeal court that covers most Western
states), and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision again in March. Questions about
the Act’s constitutionality are being heard in appeals in Virginia and Colorado as well.
Does the Stolen Valor Act violate the First Amendment?
Resources
•
U.S.A. v. Alvarez: Denying Petition for Rehearing – United States Courts for the
Ninth Circuit
•
Stolen Valor Act overturned – Daily Bulletin
•
Is lying protected speech? Military medal case is on track for Supreme Court –
Washington Post
•
Court: Stolen Valor Act Unconstitutional – CBS Sacramento
•
The First Amendment and Freedom of Speech –The Bill of Rights Institute
Discussion Questions
1. The Stolen Valor Act says:
“Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have
been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed
Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the
members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge,
decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item shall be fined
under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”
How would you put this law in your own words?
200 North Glebe Road, Suite 200, Arlington, VA 22203 Phone: 703-894-1776 www.BillofRightsInstitute.org
Educating Young People about the Constitution
2. What did Xavier Alvarez do? Why did he go to court?
3. Why did the Ninth Circuit refuse to hear the appeal? What were the First
Amendment arguments?
4. In the original ruling, the majority stated:
“The Act, as presently drafted, applies to pure speech; it imposes a criminal
penalty of up to a year of imprisonment, plus a fine, for the mere utterance or
writing of what is, or may be perceived as, a false statement of fact—without
anything more.
“The Act therefore concerns us because of its potential for setting a precedent
whereby the government may proscribe speech solely because it is a lie. While we
agree with the dissent that most knowingly false factual speech is unworthy of
constitutional protection and that, accordingly, many lies may be made the subject of
a criminal law without creating a constitutional problem, we cannot adopt a rule as
broad as the government and dissent advocate without trampling on the fundamental
right to freedom of speech.”
Why is the Court concerned about criminalization of speech based on its content?
5. The seven dissenting judges argued that because the Stolen Valor Act’s limitation
on speech is so narrowly defined, it was a constitutional limitation of speech. The
opinion, written by Jay O’Scannlain, quoted Gertz v. Welch (1974), saying, “…there
is no constitutional value in false statements of fact.” Laws provide for prosecuting
individuals who commit libel, defamation, or fraud, though the standards for
proving each of these vary. Should the First Amendment protect claims of false
facts? Why or why not?
6. Because the Stolen Valor Act is in question in several courts, some speculate that
this case will reach the Supreme Court. If this happens, how should the Supreme
Court rule?
Educating Young People about the Constitution
Extension
In these excerpts from a quote in the concurring majority opinion by Chief Judge Alex
Kozinski, the Court draws our attention to the prevalence of lies in society. Why do you
think Judge Kozinski lists these in his opinion? Do you agree with the point he is trying
to make?
We lie to protect our privacy (“No, I don’t live around here”);
to avoid hurt feelings (“Friday is my study night”);
to make others feel better (“Gee you’ve gotten skinny”);
to avoid recriminations (“I only lost $10 at poker”);
to prevent grief (“The doc says you’re getting better”);
…
to communicate displeasure (“There’s nothing wrong”);
to get someone off your back (“I’ll call you about lunch”);
to escape a nudnik (“My mother’s on the other line”);
to namedrop (“We go way back”);
to set up a surprise party (“I need help moving the piano”);
to buy time (“I’m on my way”);
…
to duck an obligation (“I’ve got a headache”);
to make a point (“Ich bin ein Berliner”);
…
to humor (“Correct as usual, King Friday”);
to avoid embarrassment (“That wasn’t me”);
…
or to maintain innocence (“There are eight tiny reindeer on the rooftop”).