This is the Supreme Court opinion on the case of United States v. Fields. Abel Fields, a resident of California, is being tried for violating the Stolen Valor Act which was signed into law in 2006. I will be reviewing this cases and cases like it to better determine a decision.
In 2011, Abel Fields attended a city meeting about public safety. He spoke publicly at the meeting, explaining that his military experience gave him the knowledge to speak with authority about public safety issues. During his speech, he claimed that he had served in the military for eight years. He also claimed that he had received the Purple Heart, a prestigious medal. However, each of Fields’s claims was false. He had never served in the military, and he had never received a medal. After being found …show more content…
On appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals the court overturned his conviction, saying that the State could not punish Johnson for burning the flag because the First Amendment protects such activity as symbolic speech. And since his act did not cause harm to anyone it was considered his right to burn the flag. Another case that is similar is New York Times vs. Sullivan. In this case the New York Times stated that the
Montgomery, Alabama police force had arrested MLK several times, although it had only been four. When the commissioner demanded a written retraction of their statement they refused and Sullivan sued them and the African American ministers mentioned in the ads. The Times then took the case to the supreme court, because they believed that they did nothing wrong.
When the Times' lawyer argued their case before the supreme court, he was successful. The court's ruling held that news publications could not be sued for libel by public figures unless the plaintiffs were able to establish actual malice in the false reporting of a news story. The Court ruled for The Times, 9–0. The rule of law applied by the Alabama courts was
In 2011, Abel Fields attended a city meeting about public safety. He spoke publicly at the meeting, explaining that his military experience gave him the knowledge to speak with authority about public safety issues. During his speech, he claimed that he had served in the military for eight years. He also claimed that he had received the Purple Heart, a prestigious medal. However, each of Fields’s claims was false. He had never served in the military, and he had never received a medal. After being found …show more content…
On appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals the court overturned his conviction, saying that the State could not punish Johnson for burning the flag because the First Amendment protects such activity as symbolic speech. And since his act did not cause harm to anyone it was considered his right to burn the flag. Another case that is similar is New York Times vs. Sullivan. In this case the New York Times stated that the
Montgomery, Alabama police force had arrested MLK several times, although it had only been four. When the commissioner demanded a written retraction of their statement they refused and Sullivan sued them and the African American ministers mentioned in the ads. The Times then took the case to the supreme court, because they believed that they did nothing wrong.
When the Times' lawyer argued their case before the supreme court, he was successful. The court's ruling held that news publications could not be sued for libel by public figures unless the plaintiffs were able to establish actual malice in the false reporting of a news story. The Court ruled for The Times, 9–0. The rule of law applied by the Alabama courts was