Right to lie

Later this week, the Supreme Court will hear United States v. Alvarez, an appeal case centered on the Stolen Valor Act, which makes any false claims of having been awarded a military medal a federal offense.

In 2007, Xavier Alvarez claimed to be a retired Marine who was awarded the Medal of Honor. The media and public alike ridiculed him shortly after the incident. The federal government also prosecuted him under the Stolen Valor Act.

Initially, he was convicted, but appealed the case and the court found that the Act violated the First Amendment. As with any legal discrepancy, the Supreme Court then took the case.

While the case is focused on the Act, it essentially comes down to whether or not our constitution holds a "right to lie." And even though punishing individuals who falsely claim to have such medals — an issue more on substance than actual significance — seems like a necessary step in preserving the integrity and credibility of our military heroes, the debate on the constitutionality of lying is a very troubling issue. It's a ruling that cannot leave any room for interpretation.

Harmless lying — as the (initial) defendants will argue — shouldn't be condemned, as no one person or organization is put in immediate threat or publicly denounced, as with libel — already a federal offense. Furthermore, our federal government should not be in the business of judging what a person can and cannot say — no matter if it's true or not.

The government has every right to monitor and observe fallacy — particularly against the country — but they do not need to act on it in a criminal manner. Rather, we should hope employers and associates take every potential employee, co-worker, presenter or any other citizen's word with a grain of salt. In reality, honesty is not a virtue.

We see lies and exaggeration every day, but there's no reason to criminally punish someone for introducing themselves as "President of the United States." And should someone dare to falsify their accomplishments and build an authority upon lies — as Alvarez did — the media and public are quick to cast criticism. We don't need the government to take extra steps.

Then considering their unnecessary intrusion, the Stolen Valor Act does not serve any compelling government interest. Preserving the integrity of the military medals program doesn't directly affect the workings of our federal government, nor does it defend those with military medals — in the sense that it does not threaten their safety or credibility.

Furthermore, the Act is quite broad, in that a mere impersonation of a military veteran, possibly adorning a medal or mentioning accomplishments, could be considered a criminal act. Whether or not other people believe the lies does not matter when prosecuting, making the charge seem even more intrusive.

Alone, the Stolen Valor Act should be abolished. Before its short six-year existence, the Medal of Honor and the other prestigious military awards never faced a diminishing threat of credibility. And the establishment of the Act hasn't thwarted any legitimate threats to the medal program.

But in general, the Stolen Valor Act ruling will either open or close a lot of doors for future legislation in prosecuting false claims. For instance, the glaring example would be in politics; could a new act criminalize false claims against candidates in paid-for advertisements?  

In every lie, there's a basic and fundamental reason to punish it: reality isn't fiction, and it cannot properly operate on fabrication. But in our society, where we enjoy the liberty to do and say what we wish, to act in whatever manner we see fit, as long as we do not intrude or make another individual suffer, all speech must be safe.

We, as the public, can weigh words on our own, and judge an individual's character and merit by our own gavel. We all hate liars, but unless the government can create a legitimate and compelling reason to criminalize the act, we all need to accept the fact that we live in a society of deception — and not many other countries have that privilege.

Editorials serve as a means for Barometer editors to offer commentary and opinions on issues both global and local, grand in scale or diminutive. The views expressed here are a reflection of the editorial board's majority.