There have been many opinions about the ruling of the United States v. Fields case. In 2011, Abel
Fields spoke at a public safety meeting and stated that he had received the Purple Heart and that he was a part of the military for over eight years. However, his claims were false. Some say that his statement is protected under the first amendment, however, it violates the Stolen Valor Act. This case went through different courts and the ruling was in favor of Abel Fields. First, freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment and although it is protected, there are limits to the freedom. Now, the question is whether or not Abel Fields should have been convicted for lying about his involvement with the military to a crowd. The majority …show more content…
In the New York Times v. Sullivan case, Sullivan sued the New York Times for printing false information about his police department. Sullivan lost the case, because there was no proof that the
New York Times acted with malice. Without proof that the New York Times knew they were leaking false information, they could not be charged. However, Abel Fields did act with malice. He intentionally lied about his service for our country. His statement was false and made public. If it is okay for him to lie about his service for his country, it would be okay for anyone to lie about their service. Anyone can walk in and say they are in the military and because of that, they would be able to receive discounts and etc.
It cannot be okay in one situation, but wrong in another. In conclusion, the decision I have made involving the United States v. Fields case is that he should be charged for his actions. He acted with malice and that could cause disruption and damage to the communities and society itself. We cannot be okay with him lying about his involvement with the military and continue to allow it for others. Too much freedom will bring abuse to it and this a
Fields spoke at a public safety meeting and stated that he had received the Purple Heart and that he was a part of the military for over eight years. However, his claims were false. Some say that his statement is protected under the first amendment, however, it violates the Stolen Valor Act. This case went through different courts and the ruling was in favor of Abel Fields. First, freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment and although it is protected, there are limits to the freedom. Now, the question is whether or not Abel Fields should have been convicted for lying about his involvement with the military to a crowd. The majority …show more content…
In the New York Times v. Sullivan case, Sullivan sued the New York Times for printing false information about his police department. Sullivan lost the case, because there was no proof that the
New York Times acted with malice. Without proof that the New York Times knew they were leaking false information, they could not be charged. However, Abel Fields did act with malice. He intentionally lied about his service for our country. His statement was false and made public. If it is okay for him to lie about his service for his country, it would be okay for anyone to lie about their service. Anyone can walk in and say they are in the military and because of that, they would be able to receive discounts and etc.
It cannot be okay in one situation, but wrong in another. In conclusion, the decision I have made involving the United States v. Fields case is that he should be charged for his actions. He acted with malice and that could cause disruption and damage to the communities and society itself. We cannot be okay with him lying about his involvement with the military and continue to allow it for others. Too much freedom will bring abuse to it and this a