Case Study: The Stolen Valor Act

Name
Professor
Course
Date
A Case Study of the Stolen Valor Act
Summary
Abel Field, a California resident, was found guilty of violating 2006, Stolen Valor Act. In his speech, during a meeting that he attended, Abel made claims publicly stating that he had eight years of experience serving military and had received the Purple Heart, considered as a prestigious medal. Hence, he was in an excellent position to speak with authority regarding public safety issues. However, such claims were found to be false, and he was then charged with a fine of $ 1000 (Smith 26). Field appealed arguing that the Act was unconstitutional. Thus he felt his freedom of speech was violated. Therefore, this paper seeks to consider similar rulings that were made in other cases to help me make viable opinion and decisions.
Opinion
In my opinion, people should have the right to express themselves as long as the remarks can solve a given problem. The reason is that people tend to have varying perspectives on things, and thus the opinion of a person should not be despised based on authority. Although making false claims like that of Abel are likely to offend the actual holders of the medal, such claims can be an appropriate way in setting the records straight if they are looked at in a positive perspective. Therefore, I think creating a database of medal of honored winners will be an alternative way of protecting the freedom of speech.
Precedent
In the case of Texas v. Johnson, Justice Stevens held that flag is a unique symbol of speech and thus burning flag was considered illegal under the first amendment (Moody 71).

The law of Texas punishes actions that are likely to provoke anger in others. As a result, the law that was used by Justice Stevens in the case of Johnson can be applied to the case of Abel Field to allow freedom of speech to people.

Works Cited
Moody, James E. “Implications of Texas V. Johnson on Military Practice.” (2015): 56-98.
Smith, Kathryn. “The Stolen Valor Act and Government Regulation of Speech under the First Amendment.” SSRN Electronic Journal, (2016): 23-34.