This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2012, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Washington • Is there value in a lie?
That's a question the Supreme Court weighed on Wednesday as it took up the case of a California man who was charged with a crime for lying about receiving the Medal of Honor.
Xavier Alvarez falsely claimed that he was a Marine who earned the nation's top award, but the question of whether such a deceit warrants prosecution and jail time or has value and deserves protection under the First Amendment is now up to the nation's high court.
The case could have direct repercussions for a Utah County veteran, Myron Brown, who is also accused of lying about earning the Distinguished Service Cross, the Silver Star and the Purple Heart during his service in the Korean War.
In Brown's case, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, presented the Provo resident with medals during a ceremony last year that was covered by the Deseret News, the Daily Herald of Provo and KSL-TV. Saying he was duped, Chaffetz last month turned over his own investigation into the matter to federal prosecutors and said he'll convene a congressional hearing on the matter.
The actions came more than a month after The Salt Lake Tribune first reported Brown, 86, presented fraudulent documents awarding him the medals. Brown denies any wrongdoing.
Justices in the Alvarez case on Wednesday were skeptical of the Stolen Valor Act passed by Congress in 2006 that criminalizes false claims of military medals, and feared that making it unlawful to lie could stifle free speech permanently.
Justice Stephen Breyer noted that if it's illegal to lie about a military medal, then political rhetoric could soon be criminalized.
"And then if this [law] is lawful and constitutional, then you have people in political campaigns suddenly worrying that the U.S. attorney is going to come in and start indicting him," Breyer told Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.
"That's part of the chilling effect," Breyer said. "And you've assumed you can get around this chilling effect, but I'm less certain."
Justice Anthony Kennedy disagreed with Verrilli's argument that there is no intrinsic value in a lie and therefore it has no need for First Amendment free-speech protection.
"I think it's a sweeping proposition to say that there's no value to falsity," Kennedy said. "Falsity is a way in which we contrast what is false and what is true."
Verrilli countered that the high court has often ruled that lies such as perjury or fraud have no protection as free speech and that in this case, the government can easily prove when someone is falsely claiming to have been awarded a medal.
"The Stolen Valor Act regulates a very narrowly drawn and specific category of calculated factual falsehood, a verifiably false claim that an individual has won a military honor," Verrilli said.
Justice Antonin Scalia agreed.
"I believe that there is no First Amendment value in in falsehood," he said, noting that lying about military service does harm to those who actually did serve and were awarded medals for their heroism.
"Their service is demeaned when everybody says, I served in the armed forces," Scalia said.
The Supreme Court, which is expected to rule later this Spring on the case, took up the issue after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers California, and the 10th Circuit, which includes Utah, disagreed on whether the law stands up in light of the Constitution's protection of free speech.
While it's unclear how the court will rule, the justices seemed split on the main significance of the case: whether a lie is worth protecting.
"Do you really think that ... there is First Amendment value in a bald-faced lie about a purely factual statement that a person makes about himself, because that person would like to create a particular persona?" questioned Justice Samuel Alito. "Gee, I won the Medal of Honor. I was a Rhodes scholar, I won the Nobel Prize. ... The First Amendment protects that?"
Yes, it does, responded Jonathan Libby, Alvarez's attorney, "As it doesn't cause imminent harm to another person or imminent harm to a government function."
Breyer, jumping in to help Libby with his argument, noted that history has shown there are justified reasons to lie, such as to protect someone from harm.
"Obvious example," the justice said. "Are there Jews hiding in the cellar?"
However the court comes down, Scalia offered his own punishment for those who would lie about military honors.
"How about giving a Medal of Shame to those who have falsely claimed to have earned the Medal of Valor?" Scalia said.
"Well, your honor," responded Libby, "that's certainly something the government could do."