Sunday, May 19, 2013
Sunday, May 19, 2013

Fibbing no match for cherished U.S. freedoms

The blog of The Philadelphia Inquirer's Editorial Board.

1 comments

Fibbing no match for cherished U.S. freedoms

POSTED: Wednesday, July 4, 2012, 11:30 PM
(AP Photo/Julio Cortez) ( Julio Cortez )

Since the Supreme Court says it's not a crime, will more people lie now about holding military honors?
Yes, that's why an official registry of medalists should be created
No, most people honor soldiers' service and won't perpetuate such hoaxes
Yes, like resume-padding, it's an unfortunate part of the culture
No, the media serve as watchdogs on such claims by public figures

In ruling that Americans’ free-speech rights protect people who lie about receiving the Medal of Honor and other military awards, the Supreme Court wasn’t endorsing such reprehensible conduct. It was issuing a resounding reminder that hard-won freedoms must be preserved.

Xavier Alvarez, a California politician, ran afoul of a 2006 federal law known as the Stolen Valor Act, which made it a crime to lie about military honors.

Although well-intentioned, the law in reality was an affront to the Bill of Rights that U.S. soldiers have risked their lives for ever since this nation was born.

The prospect that Congress might move to outlaw other kinds of statements understandably prompted rights groups, writers, publishers, and news media outlets to urge that the Supreme Court overturn the Valor Act.

A welcome and increasingly rare 6-3 court majority did that last week, ruling that Alvarez’s “contemptible” lie was shielded by the First Amendment.

The issue really wasn’t what Alvarez falsely claimed. At stake was whether the government could decree that otherwise harmless speech on any subject could be prosecuted.

The emotionally charged ruling that the Valor Act was unconstitutional was in step with the high court’s past defense of speech rights — from neo-Nazi groups marching to antigay activists disrupting military funerals.

It was disappointing that conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas dissented. Alito’s contention that Alvarez’ claims were “false statements that inflict real harm” simply was not convincing.

To see the Supreme Court finally break free of its typical 5-4 split on any issue has to stand as a rallying cry — in this case, for the fundamental freedom of Americans to speak their mind.

1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10
Inquirer Editorial Board @ 11:30 PM  Permalink | 1 comment
1 comments
Comments  (1)
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:03 AM, 07/05/2012
    No criminal penalty; but the Main Stream Media should place the offender's picture, name and address all over the media for a week or two...every year.
    joedog


About this blog
Welcome. You're reading the Inquirer Editorial Board's Say What? opinion blog. We hope you enjoy commentary from the Editorial and Commentary pages, in addition to up-to-the-minute opinion postings that appear here for the first time, including occasional Letters to the Editor. Here are thumbnail bio sketches and contact information for the editors and writers who produce the newspaper's opinion pages. Inquirer subscribers can also use their account sign-in information to access the new inquirer.com website, with every article from the newspaper posted along with breaking news, blogs, and Twitter feeds. See promo code FAQ. (Our blog roll follows the ad below.) (Our blog roll follows the ad below.)

The Inquirer Editorial Board
Blog archives:
Past Archives: