http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Medalsofhonor2.jpg
Or was this blabbermouth merely exercising his First Amendment rights?
Decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Xavier ALVAREZ, aka Javier RGK-1 Alvarez, Defendant-Appellant.
v.
Xavier ALVAREZ, aka Javier RGK-1 Alvarez, Defendant-Appellant.
Filed Aug. 17, 2010.
Background: Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, R. Gary Klausner, J., of falsely verbally claiming to have received the Congressional Medal of Honor, in violation of the Stolen Valor Act, and he appealed.
Holding: The Court of Appeals, Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judge, held that Act was facially invalid under the First Amendment, and was unconstitutionally applied to make a criminal out of a man who was proven to be nothing more than a liar.
Reversed and remanded.
Bybee, Circuit Judge, filed dissenting opinion.
West Headnotes
[1]








Stolen Valor Act, which proscribed false verbal or written representations about one's being awarded Congressionally authorized military honors and decorations, was facially invalid under the First Amendment, and was unconstitutionally applied to make a criminal out of a man who was proven to be nothing more than a liar; Act was not sufficiently analogous to an antidefamation law or anti-fraud law to bring it within the scope of the historical First Amendment exceptions for laws punishing defamation or fraud, and Act was not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest in honoring and motivating the troops. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1; 18 U.S.C.A. § 704(b, c).
[2]













All speech is presumably protected against government interference by First Amendment, and government is left to demonstrate, either through a well-crafted statute or case-specific application, the historical basis for or a compelling need to remove some speech from protection; although such an approach may result in protection for a number of lies, which are often nothing more than the distasteful abuse of the First Amendment privilege, it is constitutionally required because the general freedom from government interference with speech, and the general freedom to engage in public and private conversations without the government injecting itself into the discussion as the arbiter of truth, contribute to the “breathing space” the First Amendment needs to survive. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.
[3]





First Amendment prohibits criminally punishing negligent speech about matters of public concern. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.
[4]





Right against defamation belongs to natural persons, not to governmental institutions or symbols.
[5]





For First Amendment purposes, false factual speech as a general category is not, and cannot be, proscribed under threat of criminal prosecution. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.
West Codenotes
Held Unconstitutional
18 U.S.C.A. § 704
No comments:
Post a Comment