In this Supreme Court Abel Fields is found not guilty. In 2011, 39 year old Fields was convicted in California for falsely speaking of serving in the military for eight years and receiving a Purple Heart. He was in violation of the Stolen Valor act. The Stolen Valor act protects the veterans who receive a Purple Heart after being wounded in war. In his previous ruling he was found guilty. He later then appealed the sentencing of the case. The Court of Appeals overruled this conviction. Feild’s has argued him wearing a Purple and telling people the story of him being in the military Is apart of his freedom of speech and he is protected. The lower courts did not agree with his case. The prosecutors are arguing that he violated this act by giving
…show more content…
According to the Stolen Valor act it only applies to speech. There is nothing protecting it from what is being said, even if it might be damageable or even a lie. Overall the court decided it is easier to reverse something that is said about oneself rather than something that could ruin a person’s reputation. It is believed that this act is unnecessary, and also set a dangerous precedent. It would starts a chain reaction, the court thought if this was a law then later there would be a law against lying, or saying anything that might be slightly false. There could not be a law saying this because it would take away from the first amendment of freedom of speech.
The case of The New York Times v Sullivan, Sullivan sued the New York Times. It was ruled in his favor. They printed an advertisement that said the Montgomery, Alabama was guilty of misdeeds. The advertisement was full of factual errors. In the end the judgement was overturned. They couldn’t be convicted because there was no malice. In the case of Texas v Johnson, he was convicted for burning a flag. He later appealed his case and it went to the supreme court. This Texas law was deemed unconstitutional. The ruling said this was not unconstitutional because others might disagree with it or it might be
According to the Stolen Valor act it only applies to speech. There is nothing protecting it from what is being said, even if it might be damageable or even a lie. Overall the court decided it is easier to reverse something that is said about oneself rather than something that could ruin a person’s reputation. It is believed that this act is unnecessary, and also set a dangerous precedent. It would starts a chain reaction, the court thought if this was a law then later there would be a law against lying, or saying anything that might be slightly false. There could not be a law saying this because it would take away from the first amendment of freedom of speech.
The case of The New York Times v Sullivan, Sullivan sued the New York Times. It was ruled in his favor. They printed an advertisement that said the Montgomery, Alabama was guilty of misdeeds. The advertisement was full of factual errors. In the end the judgement was overturned. They couldn’t be convicted because there was no malice. In the case of Texas v Johnson, he was convicted for burning a flag. He later appealed his case and it went to the supreme court. This Texas law was deemed unconstitutional. The ruling said this was not unconstitutional because others might disagree with it or it might be