Charles Dharapak/AP The
Medal of Honor is held by a military honor guard at the White House
last September, when President Obama awarded the medal to Marine Cpl.
Dakota Meyer, 23, from Greensburg, Ky., for his actions in Afghanistan.
The Supreme Court is now deciding if those who falsely claim to have won such military awards can be prosecuted for lying.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Wednesday, February 22, 2012 about lies, trying to
determine when certain lies can be considered a crime under the First Amendment
guarantee of free speech. At the center of the debate is the constitutionality
of a law making it a crime to lie about being the recipient of military medals.
There have been laws making it illegal to wear an unearned medal for nearly a
century, but not one about to lie about having one.
The
Stolen Valor Act was passed in 2005, but in this case, the question is whether it violates the guarantee of free speech. A Federal Appeals Court ruled that the
law was unconstitutional, saying that it did not fit within the exceptions
carved out to the First Amendment- speech that is defamatory, that defrauds, or
is obscene. In the words of Judge Alex Kozinski, “If false factual statements are
unprotected, then the government can prosecute not only the man who tells tall
tales of winning the Congressional Medal of Honor, but also the JDater who
falsely claims he's Jewish or the dentist who assures you it won't hurt a bit,"
Today, the
government will argue that the person who lies about receiving a military medal
has stolen the valor of the award. Since the existence of military medals, there
have been a considerable amount of people who have lied about receiving them. In
2008, the Chicago Tribune investigated every biography in "Who’s Who" that listed
a military medal. Over one third of the individuals claiming to have received
medals had not. The government says that this proves the need for such a law,
but those challenging this ruling say that exposure serves the same purpose, and
that the simplest solution to the problem would be a easily accessible database
that allows anyone to check the list of military medal recipients with a click
of a mouse. At its core though, this is truly a debate over when the government
can place limits on free speech.
In my opinion, this is easily distinguished. Free speech should not
allow people to stand up and lie to the public. Lies are deliberately saying
something untrue ,in a conscious effort to
deceive somebody or to be deceptive or to give a false impression.
I believe that the law should be put in place
as a deterrent, but that the database should also be installed with the reason for the recipient's award. What these men
have done to be worthy of these awards are great things and they deserve to be
remembered. They deserve a legacy of honor and self-sacrifice to be
readily available to everyone. Our country was
founded on the principles of freedom, truth, and justice. We should have the
database accessible for everyone to remember the men who stood up in the face of
danger and death to ensure that our country remained grounded in those
principles.
To read more or listen to the original NPR broadcast, here are the links to
the website.
To listen: http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=147211850&m=147247294
Written by Hannah Chaney
I haven't deeply studied this issue, but in my opinion this is an infringement upon free speech. Even though I deem lying about receiving military honors a horrid and low hint to do, there are MANY other lies that are just as horrid so what is to stop the government from creating laws against lying and even (puttin it in a very exaggerated way) falsely accusing people of lying to shut them up. I think the database should be provided so people may privately research the truth, but it's a little much to put the government in charge of punishing people for lying. Getting a little too muh into the Lord's jurisdiction. I may be wrong, but it seems weird.
ReplyDeleteI haven't deeply studied this issue, but in my opinion this is an infringement upon free speech. Even though I deem lying about receiving military honors a horrid and low hint to do, there are MANY other lies that are just as horrid so what is to stop the government from creating laws against lying and even (puttin it in a very exaggerated way) falsely accusing people of lying to shut them up. I think the database should be provided so people may privately research the truth, but it's a little much to put the government in charge of punishing people for lying. Getting a little too muh into the Lord's jurisdiction. I may be wrong, but it seems weird.
ReplyDeleteI see where your coming from and it makes perfect sense, but to look at it honestly, haven't there already been situations where the government has twisted laws in their favor? I mean, look at Christine Collins... (I watched that movie the other night for the first time... so good.) But if we have a government and/or people who are corrupt, than there will always be something wrong... I think with any law that's passed you have to take a risk, knowing that in the future, it's possible that the same law could be used against you.
DeleteNo, I completely agree with you, Lily. It is an infringement upon free speech to institute such a law. After having studied the First Amendment in depth last year for my paper, I certainly agree with your statement. However, the database is a wonderful idea. I particularly liked Hannah's point that they should not only list WHO has received the honor, but WHY. This makes each medal much more meaningful. A medal is just a medal... but the stories are what make them truly golden.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne of you said the(and i can't find it now for some odd reason ugh)that the emberisment of the exposure of lying about it is punishment enough for lying about it. Emberisment on that scale is as bad as having to pay a fine or having to spend a couple nights in jail. Plus the government has no right to punish us for lying except when your lying under oath. Plus why let a law like that be passed if it has the potentla to start a chain of events that take away free speech.
ReplyDelete(this is if it gets out of control and there is law about lying)That is just asking people to start suing the dentist,doctors,ect that say "This won't hurt", as well as who wants their doctor to come up to them and say" Ok young man(or woman) this big thick needle that I am about to drive in to your body will hurt and it will draw blood so just bare with me." If it does go that far and if it isn't used for just black mail then we couldn't have anymore polticions and our country would fall apart.(plz tell me if I was rambling)This is Austin it wouldn't let me login in to my account for some reason