The Stolen Valor Act

In this short essay I will be discussing and choosing a verdict on the case of

 United States v. Fields. This case relates to the stolen valor act and how it conflict with freedom of speech. I will go over what the case is about and I will make a verdict on the case. 

        Abel fields falsely claimed that he had received a purple hear while serving in the military. The truth is that he never had served in the military. The stolen valor act came into play in 2006. This law states that it is a crime to make false claims saying that you have received military medals or awards. Fields was sentenced and a fine was imposed. However fields believed that he should not be convicted due to the fact of freedom of speech.

        The Stolen Valor Act applies only to pure speech. It does not consider whether this speech is hurtful to the person that has lied. Instead, it has a criminal penalty of up to a year of imprisonment, plus a fine, simply for speaking or writing a false statement. The Stolen valor act is not only unnecessary, it also can set a dangerous situation. If future acts follow the same ideas, the government may forbid speech just because it is a lie, even if that lie does not create damage.

        I have reached the verdict that due to freedom of speech that Abel field be declared innocent and the fines dropped. He caused no lasting harm and in all senses did have the right to say that he had an award even though it was a lie.