Monday, March 19, 2012

Gestolen Valor Act op Hooggerechtshof: liegt over het feit dat een held een recht?

When Xavier Alvarez stood up and were based on a local water district meeting in July 2007 said, he had no idea that he was about to commit a federal crime.

"I am a retired Marine of 25 years," he told the other Board members in Pomona, California "I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987 I received the Congressional Medal of Honor. I have many times wounded by the same guy. I'm still around.

In the most social situations, such declarations interested nods, adoring smiles and maybe heart-felt thanks for his gallant service to elicit the nation.

But it turns out that Mr. Alvarez never served a day in the u.s. Army, had never wounded, and-most important – never received the Medal of Honor.

How much do you know about the u.s. Constitution? A quiz.

After his false claim was exposed, turn up the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Alvarez was soon sued for allegedly violating the stolen Valor Act of 2005, a right that it makes a federal crime to falsely claim to have gotten a military medal.

His lawyer attacked the indictment as a violation of the first amendment, arguing that Americans a free-speech rightly have a false and outrageous allegations about himself without facing criminal prosecution of a Government truth squad.

A federal judge upheld the indictment, but an appellate Court U.S. reversed.

On Wednesday the case to the Supreme Court, where arrives Alvarez the justices are being asked to decide whether the stolen Valor Act unconstitutional regulation of freedom of expression or an acceptable effort by the Government to punish an alleged liar.

The high court has never directly addresses the issue of lying about military awards, and it is not clear how the justices may decide.

The Supreme Court has a number of categories of speech that are full first amendment protection recognised unworthy. They include obscenity, libel and slander, incitement to imminent harm, and fraud. In each of these areas causes the underlying speech a concrete damage.

Critics of the stolen Valor Act say that it requires no underlying injury. The false information claiming after receiving a medal can be penalized. These critics suggest the best remedy for such false statements are not criminal punishment but more speech, particularly truthful speech exposes the lie.

The Obama administration is urging the Court to maintain the restriction as a valid regulation of a separate type false speech that important constitutional value is missing.

Alvarez has never declared that the Court counters that such false statements are unworthy of constitutional protection. His lawyer says that the Government position marks a radical departure from free speech principles which can lead to sanctions against those who use hyperbole, exaggeration, or engage in satire.

"For good or bad, right or wrong, everybody lies. Xavier Alvarez is no exception. He told a bunch of blunders, "wrote the lawyer, Deputy Federal Public Defender Alvarez Jonathan Libby, in his letter to the Court.

"Exaggerated anecdotes, barroom braggadocio and cocktail party have always thought to be puffery than the realm of Government to reach and pass without fear of criminal penalty," said Mr. Libby.

The U.S. Solicitor General's Office disagrees, arguing that the stolen Valor Act is aimed to an important goal and that the eng is aimed to achieve that goal.

"The Government has sent a message to the public that the military decorations receiver is approved by the Government as part of a select group to convey," wrote Solicitor General Donald Verrilli in his letter to the Court. "It undermines that purpose … statistical effect of false claims by diluting the message of the prestige and honor medals".

The law would punish only those who knowingly make a false claim of a coin are issued, said Mr. Verrilli. A person is unlikely to make such a claim from confusion or accidentally, he said.

"Content-based restrictions on actual false statements are consistent with the first amendment if they are supported by a strong government interest and sufficient ' breather ' for fully secure voice offer," Verrilli said the briefing.

Alvarez the lawyer, Mr. Libby, openly admits that his client is a liar. But he says that Alvarez was nailed to the pillory in his community as an "idiot" and a "jerk" after his false statements were exposed.

Libby says Americans lie all the time in social situations and research that if his client loses his case, the Government may soon get the accuracy of a wider range of funny statements.

"Xavier Alvarez lied. He lied when he claimed to have played professional hockey for the Detroit Red Wings. He lied when he claimed to have been married to a Mexican starlet whose appearance in public causing paparazzi to swoon. He lied when he claimed to be of an engineer. He lied when he claimed to have rescued the American Ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis, and when he said that he was shot going back to grab the American flag, "said Libby in his letter.

What is the damage, Libby asked in his letter. There is no evidence that anyone is on Alvarez de false assertions about hockey or military feats.

"The Government interest in the protection of the reputation of military medals is legitimate, but not compelling," said Libby. "False claimants cannot tarnish the reputation of medal-winners."

"The Government wants to create a new test-completely unmoored from precedents of this Court," said Libby.

"Falsehoods are valuable for countless reasons: in the refining of truth in the expression of personal autonomy and in the wheels of social interaction, greasing" Libby said. "More than that, there is a realm of harmless puffery, chat and generally considered to be outside the control of the Government."

How much do you know about the u.s. Constitution? A quiz.

Get daily or weekly updates of CSMonitor.com directly in your mailbox. Sign up today.


View the original article here

No comments:

Post a Comment