The limits of free speech

Wednesday, April 25

Andrew Porwancher discusses Stolen Valor Act.  PHOTO BY: Ajinur Setiwaldi

ROTC students discuss Stolen Valor Act at CSSA event. PHOTO BY: Ajinur Setiwaldi

A student association at the University of Oklahoma hosted their last discussion of the year on Friday at the Memorial Union about the constitutional limits of free speech, focusing on a recent Supreme Court case on the constitutionality of lying about military honors.

Andrew Porwancher, a professor at OU Institute for the American Constitutional Heritage, discussed the various free speech issues concerning the constitutionality of the Stolen valor Act. More than 35 people attended including members of the Constitutional Studies Students Association, the OU Reserve Officers' Training Corps and the OU community attended the event.

The discussion is the last event CSSA will host this academic year, CSSA president, Megan Marks said. The event is about an important part of our civic life, she said.

“Our goal for the event is to gain insights into this tricky area of free speech in order to better understand our right to speech under the First Amendment,” Marks said.

The Stolen Valor Act was introduced in 2005 to enhance protections relating to the reputation and meaning of the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards, according to govtrack.us. The bill was signed into law by former President George W. Bush in 2006.

This February, the Supreme Court heard a case concerning the Stolen Valor Act. The case centers around Xavier Alvarez, a former California county water board member who made false claims about having won the Congressional Medal of Honor, according to National Public Radio.

The topic is an interesting one because it questions the extent of the First Amendment, Marks said.

“Most people can agree that we shouldn't lie about topics such as receiving the Medal of Honor, but we can disagree on whether the Stolen Valor Act is constitutionally sound,” Marks said.

Porwancher discussed the differences between protected and unprotected speech and whether lying about military honors is protected under the First Amendment. Lying is usually only criminalized when it damages a specific individual or group, he said.

Free speech is a topic that affects us all an is vital in our democracy, Marks said. Free speech is an end in itself, Porwancher said.

“We have free speech because it's in service of all of Society,” Porwancher said.

There are no specific harms inflicted by Alvarez's false claim, Porwancher said.

“My sense is that they will strike down the law,” Porwancher said.

The United States vs. Alvarez case was last in the Supreme Court on February 22, 2012 , according to the United States Supreme Court Docket.

Sources:
Andrew Porwancher
IACH Professor
porwancher@ou.edu

Megan Marks
President of CSSA
meganmarks@ou.edu
740-417-6901

US Supreme Court Website
NPR