The Stolen Valor Act Case Study:
This is the Supreme Court opinion on the case of United States v. Fields. Abel Fields, a
resident of California, is being tried for violating the Stolen Valor Act which was signed into law
in 2006. In 2011, Abel Fields attended a city meeting about public safety. He spoke publicly at
the meeting, explaining that his military experience gave him the knowledge to speak with
authority about public safety issues. During his speech, he claimed that he had served in the
military for eight years. He also claimed that he had received the Purple Heart, a prestigious
medal. However, each of Fields’s claims was false. He had never served in the military, and he
had never received a medal. After being found guilty and charged with an $1,000 fine, Fields
appealed the court’s decision which brings us here. Abel Fields argued that the Stolen Valor Act
was unconstitutional, and that his right to free speech had been violated, therefore, I will be
m
er as
taking in a count of several similar rulings on other cases to help me make a decision.
co
Let’s start off by going back to the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1963. The
eH w
New York Times printed an advertisement that accused the Montgomery, Alabama, police
o.
rs e
department of misdeeds. However, the advertisement had many factual errors. Therefore, police
ou urc
commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, sued the Times and the writers of the advertisement. According to
the court, the judgment in favor of Sullivan had to be overturned because the Times could not
o
be convicted of libel. In order to convict, courts must prove that a person has acted with malice
aC s
when making a false statement. Now let’s look at the case of Texas v. Johnson in 1989. Gregory
vi y re
Johnson was convicted of burning a flag, based on a Texas law that made this action a crime.
He appealed his conviction, and the Supreme Court heard his case. According to the court,
Johnson’s conviction had to be overturned because Texas’s law was unconstitutional.
ed d
ar stu
Governments cannot limit freedom of speech solely because the thing being said is offensive or
disagreeable to others.
After the review of these past rulings, I have no choice but to rule in the favor of the
is
defendant Abel Fields. Although what he did is frowned upon and offensive to some, he still has
Th
the right to his freedom of speech. Field’s did not intend to offend anyone or did he have a
motive to. He simply told a lie that he thought everyone would believe. He had no idea that what
he was doing would end him up on the other side of the law. Therefore, I believe it would be
sh
unfair and unconstitutional to call Mr. Field’s guilty based upon the outcomes of past, similar
rulings. However, if Mr. Field’s repeats this act again he will be forcing my hand to make him
guilty. I am hoping that in future cases my decision will influence other judges to make the right
This study source was downloaded by 100000823518935 from CourseHero.com on 08-16-2021 12:18:21 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/17384439/Government1CaseStudyEssay/
This is the Supreme Court opinion on the case of United States v. Fields. Abel Fields, a
resident of California, is being tried for violating the Stolen Valor Act which was signed into law
in 2006. In 2011, Abel Fields attended a city meeting about public safety. He spoke publicly at
the meeting, explaining that his military experience gave him the knowledge to speak with
authority about public safety issues. During his speech, he claimed that he had served in the
military for eight years. He also claimed that he had received the Purple Heart, a prestigious
medal. However, each of Fields’s claims was false. He had never served in the military, and he
had never received a medal. After being found guilty and charged with an $1,000 fine, Fields
appealed the court’s decision which brings us here. Abel Fields argued that the Stolen Valor Act
was unconstitutional, and that his right to free speech had been violated, therefore, I will be
m
er as
taking in a count of several similar rulings on other cases to help me make a decision.
co
Let’s start off by going back to the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1963. The
eH w
New York Times printed an advertisement that accused the Montgomery, Alabama, police
o.
rs e
department of misdeeds. However, the advertisement had many factual errors. Therefore, police
ou urc
commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, sued the Times and the writers of the advertisement. According to
the court, the judgment in favor of Sullivan had to be overturned because the Times could not
o
be convicted of libel. In order to convict, courts must prove that a person has acted with malice
aC s
when making a false statement. Now let’s look at the case of Texas v. Johnson in 1989. Gregory
vi y re
Johnson was convicted of burning a flag, based on a Texas law that made this action a crime.
He appealed his conviction, and the Supreme Court heard his case. According to the court,
Johnson’s conviction had to be overturned because Texas’s law was unconstitutional.
ed d
ar stu
Governments cannot limit freedom of speech solely because the thing being said is offensive or
disagreeable to others.
After the review of these past rulings, I have no choice but to rule in the favor of the
is
defendant Abel Fields. Although what he did is frowned upon and offensive to some, he still has
Th
the right to his freedom of speech. Field’s did not intend to offend anyone or did he have a
motive to. He simply told a lie that he thought everyone would believe. He had no idea that what
he was doing would end him up on the other side of the law. Therefore, I believe it would be
sh
unfair and unconstitutional to call Mr. Field’s guilty based upon the outcomes of past, similar
rulings. However, if Mr. Field’s repeats this act again he will be forcing my hand to make him
guilty. I am hoping that in future cases my decision will influence other judges to make the right
This study source was downloaded by 100000823518935 from CourseHero.com on 08-16-2021 12:18:21 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/17384439/Government1CaseStudyEssay/
