'What is that Honor?': Re-Thinking Free Speech in the 'Stolen Valor' Case

20 Pages Posted: 7 Sep 2012 Last revised: 23 Sep 2020

See all articles by R. George Wright

R. George Wright

Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

Date Written: September 6, 2012

Abstract

This Article addresses the recent emotionally-charged Supreme Court case of United States v. Alvarez. In Alvarez, the Court struck down on free speech grounds the Stolen Valor Act, which, in effect, prohibited lying claims to have been personally awarded particular military medals. The Article first presents four distinctive reasons why, if possible, the Court should have avoided deciding this case on free speech grounds. The Article then argues that if the Court was nevertheless somehow bound to reach the free speech merits, the same four reasons presented above should have persuaded the Court to have upheld the statute. Among the relevant considerations are an appropriate degree of judicial modesty under the particular circumstances, and the only minimal degree to which the logic and value of free speech were realistically implicated in the case.

Keywords: Freedom of Speech, honor, military medals, Alvarez, Stolen Valor Act

Suggested Citation

Wright, R. George, 'What is that Honor?': Re-Thinking Free Speech in the 'Stolen Valor' Case (September 6, 2012). Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law Research Paper No. 2012-20, Cleveland State Law Review, Vol. 60, 2012, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2142547 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2142547

R. George Wright (Contact Author)

Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law ( email )

530 West New York Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
93
Abstract Views
773
Rank
571,275
PlumX Metrics