Essay On Stolen Valor Act

Although the US federal reserve has released the information that US citizens have amassed a net worth in the trillions, it is a priceless, intangible freedom that many Americans value most. It was 225 years ago that the First Amendment to the Constitution was adopted into the Bill of Rights: a monumental amendment that would grant Americans their freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, and the freedom of the press (Bill of Rights, First Amendment). Esteemed film critic Roger Ebert said that it is the responsibility of the citizen to speak out in order to keep our government in check. In an interview with Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive, Ebert says,
“I begin to feel like most Americans don't understand the

One of those cases is US v Alvarez: a case that would see Xavier Alvarez prosecuted for falsely claiming to have received a Medal of Honor. Alvarez would have violated the Stolen Valor Act: an act that would criminalize those who have falsely claimed to receive a prestigious military award. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Alvarez, stating that the Stolen Valor Act goes against Xavier’s First Amendment rights. (US Courts) A similar case involved the Agency for International Development and the Alliance for Open Society International. AID required that parties interested in receiving funding to combat HIV and AIDS adopt stances opposing prostitution across the globe. The justice system ruled against this requirement: ruling that an organization cannot require others to adopt a certain belief or policy to gain benefit (Supreme Court). Both of these cases are similar in the fact that they have required our Supreme Court to read between the lines, interpreting the First Amendment to make accurate decisions relating to the people’s freedom of expression. Although our justice system ruled in favor of the people’s rights in both of these examples, a worrying precedent may be set as a result of these contemporary court cases. Can the freedoms given to the people in the First Amendment be interpreted to apply to a variety of disputes, disputes that might be deemed illegal if not applied to the freedom of