Category Archives: Free Speech

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.

Story continues below

"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.

Next Page »

The rest is here:
Supreme Court: Is a lie protected by free speech?

A small group of Bunbury musicians will travel to Fremantle this weekend to perform in a Punk Solidarity gig, organised to musically condemn the Indonesian Government’s disregard for the rights of freedom speech and personal expression.

Enraged by the treatment of a group of punks in Bandah Aceh, who were detained and punished simply for being punks, gigs will be played by Australian bands across the country in a show of support for their Indonesian counterparts.

In Western Australia, that gig will take place at the Swan Basement in Fremantle where bands from Perth, Mandurah, Margaret River and Bunbury will donate their time.

Bunbury band Nighthawker said the decision to be involved was easy.

‘‘Punk rock is generally a style of music which is disliked and misunderstood by people all over the world, so it’s really refreshing to know that there are like-minded people coming together in multiple locations to stick it to the oppressors and raise awareness of the plight of our Indonesian counterparts,’’ vocalist Anthony Steele said.

Bunbury musicians and punk music lovers Elle Driver and Daniel Taylor said it was important for them to help raise awareness of the mistreatment of the youths in Bandah Aceh.

‘‘It’s a form of personal repression and I don’t agree with it,’’ Miss Driver said.

‘‘People in Australia don’t realise how lucky they are when it comes to personal expression and freedom of speech.’’

‘‘When we heard about the gigs we knew we wanted to get involved,’’ Mr Taylor said.

Continue reading here:
Musicians perform for free speech

Court weighing free speech vs. lie about military honors

WASHINGTON -- Over the course of an hourlong argument Wednesday, the Supreme Court seemed gradually to accept that it might be able to uphold a federal law that makes it a crime to lie about military honors, notwithstanding the First Amendment's free speech guarantees.

The justices were aided by suggestions from the government about how to limit the scope of a possible ruling in its favor and by significant concessions from a lawyer for the defendant.

The case arose from a lie told in 2007 at a public meeting by Xavier Alvarez, an elected member of a Southern California water district board of directors. "I'm a retired Marine of 25 years," he said. "I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy."

That was all false, and Mr. Alvarez was prosecuted under a 2005 law, the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to say falsely that one has "been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States." Mr. Alvarez argued that his remarks were protected by the First Amendment.

His case ran into trouble at the Supreme Court, as it emerged that many justices accepted two fundamental propositions. First, most of the justices seemed to accept that the First Amendment does not protect calculated falsehoods that cause at least some kinds of harm. Second, there seemed to be something like a consensus that the government has a substantial interest in protecting the integrity of its system for honoring military distinction.

To arrive at those two propositions, the justices worked through any number of hypothetical questions and worried about the collateral damage to free speech values that a ruling upholding the law might generate.

Justice Stephen Breyer said it was all right to lie, for instance, when asked, "Are there Jews hiding in the cellar?"

Justice Samuel Alito Jr. suggested that it was acceptable to punish a false statement that "your child has just been run over by a bus."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked about false statements made while dating. Justice Elena Kagan asked about lies concerning extramarital affairs.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. asked whether Congress could make it a crime to lie about having a high school diploma. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. responded that some states had indeed enacted laws concerning diplomas from public universities, and he indicated that they would be constitutional if they concerned calculated lies about verifiable facts that led to real harm.

Mr. Verrilli listed several laws that punish those kinds of falsehoods, including ones prohibiting false statements to federal officials and banning impersonation of federal officers, as well as perjury.

Similarly, he said, the Stolen Valor Act punishes only knowing falsehoods that result in "the misappropriation of the government-conferred honor and esteem," which he called "a real harm and a significant harm."

The hardest hypothetical question for the justices seemed to concern state laws that make it a crime for politicians to lie in some settings. Mr. Verrilli said such laws might run afoul of the First Amendment because of their potential to chill truthful speech for fear of prosecution.

Justice Kagan asked a lawyer for Mr. Alvarez, Jonathan Libby, whether the Stolen Valor Act posed the same problem. "What truthful speech will this statute chill?" she asked.

Mr. Libby's response seemed to surprise Justice Kagan. "It's not that it may necessarily chill any truthful speech," he said. "We certainly concede that one typically knows whether or not one has won a medal or not."

Justice Kagan considered what she had just heard. "So, boy, I mean, that's a big concession, Mr. Libby," she said.

Mr. Libby also acknowledged that the government may punish false speech intended to obtain something of value. Chief Justice Roberts asked whether Mr. Alvarez, who was politically active, benefited from his lie. Mr. Libby said that was possible. The chief justice said this, too, was "an awfully big concession."

The New York Times Co. and other news organizations filed a brief supporting Mr. Alvarez in the case. The brief argued that most false statements are better addressed by exposing them in the marketplace of ideas than by punishing them as crimes.

There was universal agreement on one point at Wednesday's argument. No one spoke up for Mr. Alvarez, including his lawyer.

First published on February 23, 2012 at 12:00 am

See original here:
Court weighing free speech vs. lie about military honors

He said there was a danger it would produce a 'cure that is worse than the original disease' Gove asks for freedom of Press to be defended from judges and celebs

By Jason Groves

Last updated at 9:08 AM on 22nd February 2012

The Leveson inquiry into Press standards has created a ‘chilling atmosphere’ that threatens free speech in Britain, Michael Gove warned yesterday.

In an outspoken defence of the Press, the Education Secretary cautioned against allowing ‘judges, celebrities and the establishment’ to set the boundaries of free speech because they had a vested interest in shackling the media.

Mr Gove, one of David Cameron’s closest allies, also appeared to question the Prime Minister’s decision to set up the inquiry last year, warning there was a danger it would produce ‘a cure that is worse than the original disease’.

The Leveson inquiry into Press standards has created a 'chilling atmosphere' which threatens free speech in Britain, Michael Gove warned

Addressing a Westminster lunch, Mr Gove acknowledged the need to investigate alleged wrongdoing at the News of the World.

But he said there were already laws to prevent reporters ‘going rogue’, including specific offences of intercepting voicemail messages and bribing public officials.

Gove warned there were 'dangers' in the wide-ranging inquiry chaired by Lord Justice Leveson

Mr Gove, a former senior journalist at The Times, said there was a natural temptation for politicians to ‘succumb’ to demands for an inquiry by ‘establishment’ figures in the wake of a major scandal.

But he warned there were ‘dangers’ in the wide-ranging inquiry chaired by Lord Justice Leveson.

He said: ‘There is a danger at the moment that what we may see are judges, celebrities, and the establishment, all of whom have an interest in taking over from the Press as arbiters of what a free Press should be, imposing either soft or hard regulation.

‘What we should be encouraging is the maximum amount of freedom of expression and the maximum amount of freedom of speech.’

He added: ‘Journalists should be more assertive in making the case for Press freedom, and politicians should recognise that we have nothing to gain and everything to lose from fettering a Press which has helped keep us honest in the past and ensured that the standard of debate in this country is higher than in other jurisdictions.

‘The big picture is that there is a chilling atmosphere towards freedom of expression which emanates from the debate around Leveson.

GOVE: A MAN WHO UNDERSTANDS THE MEDIA

Michael Gove was born in 1967 in Edinburgh and was educated at Robert Gordon’s College, Aberdeen and then Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford University.

He has been a journalist since he left university, working for local and national newspapers, radio and TV.

His career began as a trainee reporter for The Press and Journal in Aberdeen.

He joined The Times in 1996 as a leader writer. He also held the position of comment editor, news editor, Saturday editor and assistant editor.

Mr Gove has also worked for the BBC's Today programme, On The Record, Scottish Television, and was a regular panelist on BBC Radio 4's The Moral Maze and has appeared on Newsnight Review on BBC 2.

In addition he is also a published author and has written books including a biography of Michael Portillo.

He was first elected as an MP for Surrey Heath in May 2005. Following the 2010 General Election he was appointed Secretary of State for Education.

He is married to Sarah, a journalist at The Times.

'I think that there are laws already in place that we should respect and principles already in place that we should uphold that are central to ensuring that this country remains free.’

Mr Gove said previous inquiries into national scandals had produced reports that ‘give birth to quangos, commissions, and law-making creatures that actually generate over-regulation, over-prescription, and sometimes a cure that is worse than the original disease’.

He said the Food Standards Agency, which was born out of the BSE crisis, had gone from being a ‘body that was responsible for governing the safety of our food to one that became yet another meddlesome and nanny organisation that was telling us what we should eat and in what proportion’.

And he said 800 pages of guidance produced in the wake of the deaths of Victoria Climbie and Baby P was ‘impenetrable and has still not ensured that our children are safer today than they were two, three or five years ago’.

He acknowledged that he had sometimes been ‘irritated’ by Press coverage of his own conduct, but insisted that the media had a key role to play in holding politicians to account.

Sources close to the Education Secretary last night said he supported the decision to set up the inquiry but was concerned about the direction it had taken.

Downing Street said the Prime Minister stood by his decision to order the inquiry, but insisted he valued the role played by the media.

His official spokesman said: ‘He has made very clear on a number of occasions since how important he thinks it is that we have a free Press and free media that is able to challenge governments and others.’

GOVE'S SPEECH: 'A CHILLING ATMOSPHERE TOWARDS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION'

“One of the things that struck me over the past few months is that a new set of stereotypes every bit as misleading and caricatured as those about politicians, have grown up around journalists and about the media and the way in which it operates. I am thinking in particular about the Leveson inquiry and the debate that has surrounded it.

“One the things that struck me about politics is that there is a particular tendency to which all politicians are tempted to succumb. In the aftermath of a specific crisis, when an undoubted wrong has been done, there is a desire to find a judge, a civil servant, a representative of the great and the good, inevitably a figure from the establishment, to inquire into what went wrong, and to make recommendations about what might be put right.

“It is a natural thing for politicians to do, but there are dangers associated with it. Sometimes the recommendations of that report may be modest, proportionate and sane. But sometimes they give birth to quangos, commissions, and law-making creatures that actually generate over-regulation, over—prescription, and sometimes a cure that is worse than the original disease.

“If we look back at government’s response to various crises in the past, there have been some profound crises that have affected all of our consciences. And because they have affected our consciences, people have wanted to be seen to act. So for example in the immediate aftermath of BSE and the problems associated with the quality of our food, the Food Standards Agency wa
s quite rightly set up,

“But one of the problems is that the Food Standards Agency morphed over time from being a body that was responsible for governing the safety of our food to one that became yet another meddlesome and nanny organisation that was telling us what we should eat and in what proportion.

“The same thing applied to the vetting and barring scheme and also to the Every Child Matters agenda in the wake of the tragic deaths of Victoria Climbie and subsequently Baby Peter. In both cases the tragic death of two children led to an attempt to ensure that we more effectively policed those that worked with young people but the result of that was a situation where Phillip Pullman had to apply for a Criminal Records Bureau check in order to go into a school to read to children.

“In the same way we developed guidance which is 800 pages long, is impenetrable and has still not ensured that our children are safer today than they were two, three or five years ago.

“I see the same dangers in the Leveson inquiry and in the way in which the debate on press regulation are moving now. It is undoubtedly the case that there were serious crimes which were committed, but we know those crimes were serious because they broke, if the allegations are proven, the already existing criminal law. There are laws against the interception of messages, there are laws against bribery, there are laws that prevent journalists like any other professional, going rogue. Those laws should be vigorously upheld, vigorously policed. However, there is a danger at the moment that what we may see are judges, celebrities, and the establishment, all of whom have an interest in taking over from the press as arbiters of what a free press should be, imposing either soft or hard regulation. What we should be encouraging is the maximum amount of freedom of expression and the maximum amount of freedom of speech.

"The reason why I say there is a particular danger at the moment is that because we all know that newspapers are under threat, under threat from the pressure of advertising migrating online, under threat from a variety of new news sources, that is why whenever anyone sets up a new newspaper, as Rupert Murdoch has done with the Sun on Sunday, they should be applauded and not criticised, and that is why journalists should be more assertive in making the case for press freedom, and politicians should recognise that we have nothing to gain and everything to lose from fettering a press which has helped keep us honest in the past and ensured that the standard of debate in this country is higher than in other jurisdictions.”

“The big picture is that there is a chilling atmosphere towards freedom of expression which emanates from the debate around Leveson. I think that there are laws already in place that we should respect and principles already in place that we should uphold that are central to ensuring that this country remains free.”

See the original post:
Michael Gove: Leveson Inquiry has created 'chilling atmosphere that threatens free speech'

WASHINGTON (AP) — Free speech cases before the Supreme Court often lead justices to consider far-fetched scenarios, and Wednesday's argument over a law making it a crime to lie about having received top military honors was no exception.

One after another, the justices wanted to know whether a decision upholding the Stolen Valor Act could lead down a slippery slope to new laws against such things as lying about the Holocaust, an extramarital affair, a high school diploma, college degrees or to impress a date.

"Where do you stop?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked at one point.

But the justices also suggested that it might be possible in this case to uphold the 2006 law anyway by reasoning that Congress has an interest in protecting medals it created to honor war heroes.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who asked about lies about college degrees, also seemed open to sustaining the law.

"Here it does seem to me that you can argue that this is something like a trademark, a medal in which the government and the armed forces have a particular interest, and we could carve out a narrow exception for that. I think we would have to do that," Kennedy said.

The high court has in recent years overwhelmingly rejected limits on speech, striking down a federal ban on videos showing graphic violence against animals and a state law aimed at keep violent video games away from children. The court also rejected the attempt by the father of a dead Marine to sue fundamentalist church members who staged a mocking protest at his son's funeral.

And in 1989, the court said the Constitution protects the burning of the American flag.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the earlier cases made clear that merely offending others by itself is not enough to justify limiting speech.

"So outside of the emotional reaction, where's the harm? And I'm not minimizing it. I, too, take offense when people make these kinds of claims, but I take offense when someone I'm dating makes a claim that's not true," said Sotomayor, who is divorced.

She seemed the least willing member of the court to accept the Obama administration's defense of the law and disputed the view that the value of the highest award, the Medal of Honor, or any others has been diminished because some people lie about having received them.

The administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., defended the law as targeted to protect the integrity of the system established by Gen. George Washington in 1782. Wednesday was Washington's 280th birthday.

"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.

On the other side from Sotomayor was Justice Antonin Scalia. "When Congress passed this legislation, I assume it did so because it thought that the value of the awards that these courageous members of the armed forces were receiving was being demeaned and diminished by charlatans. That's what Congress thought," Scalia said.

Jonathan Libby, the federal public defender arguing against the law, said Congress' intent is hard to discern because it passed the legislation without any hearings.

The effort to limit the reach of a ruling in favor of the law appeared to be the court's most pressing concern.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wondered whether Congress could use the same rationale put forth by Verrilli to justify laws against denying the existence of the Holocaust or lying merely about having served in the military.

Justice Elena Kagan asked whether the government's concern about the stability of the family could lead to a law "to prevent everybody from telling lies about their extramarital affairs."

Several justices expressed concern that a ruling striking down the law might also call into question a separate provision that makes it a crime to actually wear an unearned medal.

Libby's client, Xavier Alvarez, was one of the first people prosecuted for violating the Stolen Valor Act. Alvarez told a meeting of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in Pomona, Calif., to which he had been elected, that he was a wounded war veteran who has received the Medal of Honor.

He never served in the armed forces.

Libby said public exposure of lies about military medals is preferable to prosecution. Alvarez "still was exposed for who he was, which was a liar," Libby said.

The two federal appeals courts that have considered the issue have come to different conclusions. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco struck down the law in Alvarez's case. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the law in the case of another false claim of military valor.

Civil liberties groups, writers, publishers and news media outlets, including The Associated Press, have told the justices they worry that the law, and especially the administration's defense of it, could lead to more attempts by government to regulate speech.

Veterans groups are backing the administration.

If the court were to strike down the law, legislation proposed by Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., would make it a crime to benefit from lying about a military record.

A decision is expected by late June.

The case is U.S. v. Alvarez, 11-210.

___

Online:

Military Times Hall of Valor database: http://militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards

Read more:
High court torn over law banning lies about medals

Enlarge Bruce Smith/ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Supreme Court heard arguments over whether it should be a crime to lie about receiving military medals. Here large replicas of the Medals of Honor hang at the Medal of Honor Museum.

Bruce Smith/ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Supreme Court heard arguments over whether it should be a crime to lie about receiving military medals. Here large replicas of the Medals of Honor hang at the Medal of Honor Museum.

The U.S. Supreme Court took up the subject of lying on Wednesday.

Specifically at issue was the constitutionality of a 2006 law that makes it a crime to lie about having received a military medal. But the questions posed by the justices ranged far beyond that — from advertising puffery to dating lies.

At the center of the case is Xavier Alvarez, a former California county water board member who is an undisputed liar. Among his lies is that he played professional hockey, served in the marines and rescued the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis. None of those lies was illegal.

But when he claimed to have won the Medal of Honor, that lie was a violation of the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to make false claims about receiving military medals.

Alvarez appealed his conviction and won. A federal appeals court struck down the law as a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

The government appealed to the Supreme Court where, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli on Wednesday told the justices that the law regulates only a narrowly drawn category of calculated falsehoods and that the "pinpointed" pure lies targeted by the statute are not speech protected by the First Amendment.

But Verrilli soon faced a barrage of questions about when Congress can make it a crime to tell a lie that does not defraud or defame.

Justice Sonia Sontomayor began by asking whether, under this law, the Government could have prosecuted a Vietnam War protester for holding up a sign that said, "I won a Purple Heart — for killing babies," when the protester had not won the medal.

Verrilli answered that "it would depend" whether that expression was "reasonably understood by the audience as a statement of fact or an exercise in political theater."

"That's somewhat dangerous, isn't it," responded Sotomayor, noting that she thought it was the government's position that there are no circumstances in which calculated and false factual speech has value.

Yes, Verrilli said, that is the government's position. It is also the Supreme Court's position, expressed repeatedly in its opinions, he maintained.

At that suggestion, Justice Anthony Kennedy almost levitated out of his chair.

"I simply can't find that in our cases," he said. "I think it's a sweeping proposition to say that there's no value to falsity."

Verrilli responded by trying to narrow the reach of the language in the Stolen Valor Act. The law, he argued, regulates "a very narrowly drawn and specific category of calculated factual falsehood, a verifiably false claim that an individual has won a military honor, and that's information that is ... uniquely within the knowledge of the individual speaker."

Still, Chief Justice John Roberts wondered, "Where do you stop?"

Could Congress make it a crime for a person to falsely claim that he graduated from high school?

Verrilli conceded that Congress, or more likely state governments, could make it a crime to lie about having graduated from high school.

Justice Kennedy, however, was clearly in search of some narrower category of false speech that could be outlawed. "You can argue that this is something like a trademark, a medal in which the government and armed forces have a particular interest, and we could carve out a narrow exception for that," he said. "But just to say that ...there is no value to false speech. I simply cannot agree."

Justice Samuel Alito asked whether the military medals law is limited to statements a person makes about himself.

Verrilli said it is, but then Alito asked why the government chose to draw the line there. "Suppose the statute also made it a crime to represent falsely that ... a spouse or a child was a medal recipient?"

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg broadened the question further. Could Congress criminalize other false statements, such as denying that the Holocaust occurred?

Verrilli replied that that kind of statement would be protected under the First Amendment because "it's so bound up with matters of ideological controversy." He said that the Holocaust example was different from this case, which involves, with "pinpoint accuracy, a specific verifiable claim about yourself having won a medal."

Justice Elena Kagan noted that quite a few states have laws on the books that make it a crime for political candidates to lie during a political campaign. But Verrilli said those laws too would likely be unconstitutional because they would risk chilling speech.

Justice Antonin Scalia noted that "Even in the commercial context we allow a decent amount of lying, don't we? ... It's calling puffing."

"What about lying about extramarital affairs?" asked Kagan. After all, she observed the government has a strong interest in the sanctity of the family.

Verrilli acknowledged the hypothetical presented "a hard case."

"The trouble is," interjected Justice Stephen Breyer, that we "can think of 10,000 instances that meet your criteria," for laws that could criminalize everyday lies.

"[T]he core of the First Amendment," observed Justice Sotomayor, is to protect even offensive speech." In this case, she contended, "we don't think less of the medal ... we're offended " by the lie. "So outside of the emotional reaction, where's the harm?"

"I'm not minimizing it," Sotomayor added. "I take offense when someone I'm dating makes a claim that's not true."

At that, Solicitor General Verrilli piped up. "As the father of a 20-year-old daughter, so do I."

But this law involves weighty symbols of courage and valor, Verrilli said. These medals "are a big deal. You get one for doing something very important, after a lot of scrutiny. And for the government to ... stand idly by when one charlatan after another makes a false claim to have won the medal does debase the value of the medal in the eyes of the soldiers."

In that case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wondered, did the military ask Congress to enact the military medals law?

No, Verrilli replied. It did not.

Following Verrilli to the podium was the lawyer for Alvarez, public defender Jonathan Libby.

The first question came from Chief Justice Roberts: What is the First Amendment value in a pure lie?

Libby answered that people often make things up about themselves, such as when "Samuel Clemens created Mark Twain," fabricating much material about his own biography.

Roberts dismissed that example, saying Twain lied for "literary" purposes.

Justice Alito persisted: "Do you really think that there is a ... First Amendment value in a bald-faced lie about a purely factual statement that a person makes about himself?"

When Libby floundered, Justice Breyer interjected by providing an example of a lie that
had value: "Obvious example...are you hiding Jews in the cellar? No."

Even some of the Justices who voiced concerns about the government's argument still seemed reluctant to strike down the law outright.

Justice Kennedy opined, "It's a matter of common sense that...[the false claim to a medal] demeans the medal."

Justice Kagan questioned whether the Stolen Valor Act could affect other forms of speech. "The reason we protect some false statements...is to protect truthful speech," she observed. So, "how is it that this statute will chill any truthful speech?"

Defense lawyer Libby conceded that he could not think of a way the Stolen Valor Act would in fact chill speech.

A surprised Kagan replied, "Boy ... that's a big concession, Mr. Libby."

Still, Libby insisted that in order to justify a law like this one, there would have to be an immediate targeted harm that is inflicted or there would have to be some sort of personal gain from the lie.

How much harm, asked Justice Alito. Suppose the lie built up the liar so much that he got a date with a rich potential spouse. Would that be enough harm?

I certainly would not think that is a significant "thing of value," Libby responded.

Alito, with a wry smile: "Some people might have a different opinion."

Read more:
Is A Lie Just Free Speech, Or Is It A Crime?

ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI-FOX2NOW.com)—

St. Louisans will continue to see a large, anti-eminent domain sign on a brick building near  I-44 in south St. Louis City.  It's been at the heart of a free speech legal case that had gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the case.  That allowed a decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals  in St. Louis to stand.  Under that ruling, the building owner, Jim Roos is allowed to express his opinion on the building and does not have to comply with St. Louis City commercial sign ordinances.

Roos' sign says "end eminent domain abuse."  He had the mural painted after St. Louis City took 24 rental buildings he owned or managed under a blighting ordinance.

"People didn't realize that you could lose your home or business for some private development .  Not many people knew it and now they do and our mural, protest mural helped inform the public of that," said Roos Tuesday.

St. Louis City Counselor Patti Hageman issued this statement: "Of course we are disappointed that the Court decided not to accept review.  There is a clear split in the federal circuits as to how municipalities may regulate signs such as this one. In the meantime, the City will continue to look at its own ordinances and amend them as necessary."

A public interest law firm in Arlington, VA argued the case for Roos and his Neighborhood Enterprises, Inc. firm and housing ministry "Sanctuary in The Ordinary."  "This case is very significant in its holding that government may not regulate signs or speech more broadly based on the subject matter or the speech," said senior attorney Michael Bindas. Bindas said the city was choosing what topics its citizens could publically talk about by attempting to regulate the protest sign.

Roos' real opposition was to the use of eminent domain to take private property for another private development.

"The state of Missouri still has laws that could allow that building or that area to be declared blighted and still taken by eminent domain. What we do have the right is to protest; that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court indirectly today by not reviewing the case," pointed out Roos.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals covers seven states so its decisions apply within those states and not necessarily across the country.  Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North and South Dakota fall in the circuit.

Institute for Justice attorney Bindas sees another value to the  decision.   "This case shows how inter-conntected our constitutional rights are and how vibrant, free speech protections are essential to the protections of our other rights and liberties including property rights," Bindas said.
 
For additional information contact the Neighborhood Enterprises at http://www.neapts.com or the Institute for Justice at http://www.ij.org.

Originally posted here:
Court Rules Large Eminent Domain Sign Protected As Free Speech

THE Leveson Inquiry into press standards is having a "chilling" effect on free speech, a top Cabinet minister said yesterday.

Education Secretary Michael Gove said laws and principles already existed to guard against the type of activities that initially gave rise to the probe.

He also warned there was a danger of regulation being imposed by "judges, celebrities, and the Establishment... all of whom have an interest in taking over from the press as arbiters of what a free press should be".

He added: "The big picture is that there is a chilling atmosphere towards freedom of expression which emanates from the debate around Leveson."

Former journalist Mr Gove said that with the rise of the internet, newspapers were under pressure like never before.

In a speech in London, he said: "That is why whenever anyone sets up a new newspaper, as Rupert Murdoch has done with a Sunday Sun, they should be applauded and not criticised."

He said politicians had "nothing to gain and everything to lose from fettering a press which has helped keep us honest".

David Cameron set up the Leveson Inquiry after accusations of phone hacking at the now-defunct News of the World.

Mr Gove said law-breaking by the media should be "vigorously policed", but warned inquiries such as Leveson can spawn official bodies that present "a cure worse than the original disease".

k.schofield@the-sun.co.uk

Read more:
Minister: The Leveson Inquiry is 'chilling' free speech

Lenny Ignelzi / AP 2008

Day laborers gather on a San Diego sidewalk in 2008 waiting to be hired. Cities sought to ban such workers from standing on sidewalks while seeking jobs.

Day laborers in Western states including California scored a legal victory Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a lower-court ruling declaring that cities violate free speech when they make it a crime to seek work from passing drivers.

The case comes from the Los Angeles suburb of Redondo Beach and affects dozens of cities in California and other states that have passed or considered bans on asking for work from the sidewalk.

In the Bay Area, federal courts barred Mountain View and Los Altos from enforcing similar laws nearly a decade ago, said Thomas Saenz, general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which led the legal challenges. Many day laborers in California are Latino.

"Day laborers have a right to free speech, just as much as a wealthy corporation or a well-heeled political candidate," Saenz said. "The First Amendment protects everyone's speech, particularly on a sidewalk, where from the beginning of our country's history folks have engaged in free expression."

Lawyers for Redondo Beach argued that the city was regulating conduct, not speech.

"The city has a problem with day laborers congregating on sidewalks, causing cars to stop, creating traffic congestion," said attorney Roderick Walston.

Scott Howard, a lawyer for the League of California Cities, said the Supreme Court's rebuff will force many cities to put proposed ordinances on hold and leaves them with little guidance on their authority to "regulate solicitation on public rights-of-way."

The 1989 Redondo Beach ordinance prohibited anyone on a street or sidewalk from soliciting employment, business or contributions from motorists.

In its 9-2 ruling overturning the ordinance in September, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the law could apply to children's lemonade stands, sidewalk food vendors that advertise to passers-by, sign-carrying demonstrators seeking donations, or youngsters shouting "car wash," none of whom necessarily poses a traffic hazard.

"The ordinance restricts significantly more speech than is necessary" to promote the city's stated goal of traffic safety, Judge Milan Smith said in the majority opinion. He said cities have other safety options, like enforcing laws against jaywalking and obstructing traffic.

In dissent, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said the Constitution doesn't prevent government from making sure that "sidewalks are reserved for walking rather than loitering; streets are used as thoroughfares rather than open-air hiring halls; and bushes serve as adornment rather than latrines."

In seeking Supreme Court review, lawyers for Redondo Beach said the ruling conflicted with federal court decisions that have upheld day-labor-solicitation bans in other states. But Saenz said none of those laws prohibited asking for work from the sidewalk.

The case is Redondo Beach vs. Comite de Jornaleros, 11-760.

This article appeared on page C - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle

See original here:
Day laborers win Supreme Court free-speech case

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Alvarez claimed to have rescued the U.S. ambassador in Iran in 1979 He's currently in prison on separate fraud charges The justices must decide if the First Amendment protects lies about military medals A lower court ruled Alvarez's free speech rights were violated in the medal fraud prosecution

Washington (CNN) -- Xavier Alvarez ran for public office in California touting an impressive resume, including claims that he was a recipient of the highest military decoration awarded by the U.S. government, the Medal of Honor, for combat bravery.

He won the election but wound up in a heap of trouble -- eventually shamed and imprisoned on charges not related to the medal declaration. Now his cautionary tale is before the Supreme Court, in an unusual free speech fight over lies and honor. Arguments in the case begin Wednesday morning, with a ruling expected by the summer.

At issue is the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act, a 2006 congressional law making it a crime to "falsely represent himself or herself, verbally or in writing," as having been awarded military honors.

The justices will decide whether the First Amendment would normally protect such "knowing falsehoods," unless they fit within a few narrow exceptions -- such as defamation, monetary fraud, or perjury.

"The case really does present the question, when is it that lying can be a crime? How much harm does it have to do, and how much of a free speech right to lie is there?" said Thomas Goldstein, a prominent Washington attorney and publisher of SCOTUSblog.com. "Lots of times, cases get up to the Supreme Court precisely because the speech is really offensive and the justices end up saying: this is what it is to have a First Amendment in our country."

A divided federal appeals court had earlier ruled against the Obama administration, concluding there was inadequate "compelling governmental interest" when Congress passed the law.

Alvarez had won a seat on the Three Valleys Municipal Water District's board of directors in 2007, and at one of his first open meetings claimed to be a retired Marine who received the Medal of Honor in 1987. A photo shows a bow-tied Alvarez openly displaying dozens of military honors on a dress uniform.

"I got wounded many times by the same guy," Alvarez later declared in another public session, according to court records. "I'm still around." It was a recording of that claim that gave prosecutors the evidence needed to file charges.

Bob Kuhn is the president of the district's board of directors, serving the San Gabriel Valley of southern California, east of Los Angeles. He said he first heard about Alvarez a week before the municipal election, when the candidate claimed in a local newspaper to have saved a woman from "certain death" when she got stuck behind a refrigerator, while he was allegedly out campaigning door-to-door in the neighborhood.

"He wasn't shy about talking about his military career, wasn't shy about talking about how many times he'd been shot" in combat, Kuhn told CNN. "He exaggerated... no, he didn't exaggerate, he lied about the fact that he'd been in three helicopter crashes, he'd been shot fifteen or sixteen times. The graduation from school, these were all things that he put down on literature to get elected. And where the public trust was really violated, in my opinion, and when I became very offended was when I realized that realistically, the election hinged on the fact that he was a war hero."

The claims were all a fantasy: Alvarez never served in the military, and was not a professional engineer with a degree from Cal Poly, as his campaign literature stated. In fact, he never attended college.

Alvarez -- who has also publicly referred to himself as Javier Alvarez -- was prosecuted on two counts of falsely, verbally claiming to have received the medal. He had conditionally pleaded guilty, reserving his right to later appeal on constitutional grounds. He was fined $5,000, given three years' probation, and resigned in 2010 from the utility board based in Claremont, California.

Kuhn said Alvarez never fully explained his actions. "He was very combative and he did everything he could to get you to not bring it up again... I said you really need to step down. He just he looked at me like there's something wrong with me," said Kuhn. "It was really kind of sad to watch him because it made a big difference in how people see us as politicians or at least at the water board level, in my own community."

While the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals later ruled Alvarez's free speech rights were violated, they showed little sympathy for his actions, calling them "nothing but a series of bizarre lies."

"We have no doubt that society would be better off if Alvarez would stop spreading worthless, ridiculous, and offensive untruths," the three-judge panel concluded. "But, given our historical skepticism of permitting the government to police the line between truth and falsity, and between valuable speech and drivel, we preemptively protect all speech, including false statements, in order that clearly protected speech may flower in the shelter of the First Amendment."

The appeals court ruling prompted outrage from veterans groups, and the Obama administration urged the high court to intervene.

The judges noted Alvarez apparently "makes a hobby of lying about himself." Acquaintances told the FBI he claimed to have received the Medal of Honor during the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis in Iran in 1979, during which, he bragged, he personally rescued the U.S. ambassador. Friends also said he claimed to have won the medal during the Vietnam War, according to court records. He also spread stories that he was a former professional hockey player and a police officer; and that he was married to a Mexican movie starlet.

Alvarez sees his situation differently. His lawyer Jonathan Libby, a federal public defender who will argue the case before the justices, said his client's accumulated lies -- while a "bunch of whoppers," as Libby put it -- were "political speech" and deserved protection.

"Mr. Alvarez was a publicly elected official who told a lie at a meeting," said Libby. "It's our position he was engaging in that same kind of political speech."

"If the court were to uphold the law, it's certainly possibly Congress could pass all kinds of laws: they could make it a crime to lie on one's Facebook page, or a dating website -- and it doesn't necessarily have to be a serious lie, or have to harm anybody," said Libby, who added that his client remains "very apologetic" for his deception. "Sometimes free expression goes too far and offends some people, but on the whole, the First Amendment gives us a certain level of autonomy and that's what the court has protected."

The FBI in 2010 investigated more than 200 "stolen valor" cases, a number that has almost tripled in the years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to the agency.

Beyond the circumstances of this appeal, the broader constitutional concerns deal with the power of the government to limit certain types of speech, particularly those made by public officials and those made during election campaigns.

The Supreme Court has been split in recent years over whether false statements of fact should be protected under the Constitut
ion, except in very limited circumstances. The Justice Department had argued Alvarez's statements deserved no legal protection because they had little value, and that there was a larger societal need to "protect speech that matters," in this case the bravery and integrity of military heroes who rightfully earned their medals.

The high court in 2010 struck down another federal law, this one designed to stop the sale and marketing of videos showing dogfights and other acts of animal cruelty. The 8-1 majority said it was an unconstitutional violation of free speech.

The federal Stolen Valor Act was designed to "protect the reputation" of military decorations, citing "fraudulent claims surrounding the receipt of the Medal of Honor (and other congressionally authorized military medals, decorations, and honors)." Similar laws have been in place since 1948.

The current law was a result of the hard work from Pam and Douglas Sterner, former Colorado natives who helped draft the legislation and who lobbied members of Congress to pass it.

"For every person who claims a Medal of Honor, I've uncovered scores of people claiming the Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross, hundreds claiming Purple Hearts," said Doug Sterner, a Vietnam War veteran. "The numbers run into the thousands, and they run from the common criminal who's trying to pick up a girl or get a free meal, to politicians, to some of our most esteemed individuals in society."

The Sterners created "Home of Heroes," a popular website and database on veteran issues. They say if the law is declared unconstitutional by the high court, the next practical step would be to create a government-run, national database to track every medal earned by every American war veteran. That project is in the works and supporters say it would help ferret out frauds like Alvarez, but not stop them entirely.

As for Alvarez, he is currently in the California State Prison in Centinela, convicted separately last year for defrauding the water district. According to court records, he lied to the board about being married so his ex-wife could collect taxpayer-funded health benefits. The couple had actually been divorced for nearly three decades.

He's due to be released next month.

"Including the day of the trial when he was going into court, I never once to this second have ever heard him say, 'I'm sorry I did it' or show any kind of remorse. None. Zero," said Kuhn. "He just doesn't have that gene in him."

The medals case is U.S. v. Alvarez (11-210).

Continued here:
Lying about valor: Justices to debate free speech case