The New York based law firm, Garson, Segal, Steinmetz, Fladgate LLP, (GS2Law) brings to my attention a very interesting case recently heard at the Supreme Court. The case is that of the United States vs Alvarez. It arises because of the Stolen Valor Act, whereby it a federal crime to falsely represent that one has “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.”
Xavier Alvarez lied about a number of matters. For example, as GS2Law explain, he lied “that he rescued the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis” and “that he was married to a Mexican movie star.” To lie about such matters are not criminal, they are just lies. However, Alvarez also stated, “I’m a retired marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. I’m still around.” This lie was deemed to a federal crime and deserved of being punished with 416 hours of community service, a fine of $5,000 and three years probation. Alvarez appealed and won, but the government were not satisfied and took the case to the Supreme Court.
In my opinion it will be a disgrace if the U.S. government wins this case. There are limits of freedom of speech. The most famous example is that one cannot without justification shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Another is that a company cannot make false claims about its products in advertising. There are other examples but as GS2Law explain, “in each of those situations, there is a clear ‘harm’ that results from the speech.” It is more difficult to say who has been harmed by someone falsely claiming to be a military hero. While the answer to this can be argued to genuine military heroes, it does not seem to me reasonable that this is worthy of a federal crime.
In the United States, under the First Amendment, there is substantial freedom of speech: neo-Nazis can deny the Holocaust, antigay activists can disrupt funerals and the President of the United States can be denounced as terrorist. Given this, I concur with the view expressed by the Los Angeles Times:
If Alvarez had lied about his military record to obtain money, he would have been guilty of the eminently prosecutable crime of fraud. But in itself a pathetic claim to military glory — a claim easily debunked by a visit to the Internet — isn’t the sort of statement a free society should criminalize.
In his recent book, You Can’t Read This Book, Nick Cohen reminds us that the libel laws in England have so little respect in America that “President Obama signed a law that stated that the US courts should not enforce the orders of English judges against American authors.” I cannot say I blame Obama for this action. But at the same time, there is no reason why, when it comes to matters of freedom of speech, we in England cannot point our fingers to the Americans and say to them, in the event the government wins this case, “Tu quoque.” Of course, such an argument should not be used to justify the fear of speaking out in England due to our own oppressive libel laws, but it might make Americans realise that their own so-called freedom of speech can be called into question.
