Free Speech or Scumbag?
We go through a hell of a lot to call ourselves Marines…I don’t know whether to feel sorry for this guy or what. Notice that it takes the NY Times to counterpoint this with a “free-speech” issue; Free only becasue people are willing to die for it…
A False Claim Of Valor And A Cry Of Free Speech
By Adam Liptak
NY Times
When Xavier Alvarez was asked to say a few words about himself at a meeting of a California water board last summer, he decided on these: “I’m a retired marine of 25 years. 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. I’m still around.”
Only the last three words were true. Mr. Alvarez never served in the Marines and was certainly never given the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest award for valor in action against an enemy force.
He is, then, a liar. Is he also a criminal?
Mr. Alvarez is scheduled to go on trial next month in federal court in Los Angeles for violating the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, which makes it a crime to lie about having received certain medals.
Craig H. Missakian, the prosecutor in the case, is a brainy and literate fellow. “It’s a superinteresting area,” he said, beginning a discussion of Pericles’ funeral oration and the importance of honoring the legacies of those fallen in battle.
“You don’t want to stifle speech about opinions and ideas,” Mr. Missakian said. “But Congress, and rightfully so, recognized the great sacrifice that people awarded the Medal of Honor made on behalf of their country. To the extent we have phony Medal of Honor winners running around like Alvarez, it dilutes the value of their sacrifice.”
That rationale is reflected in Congressional findings. The law, Congress said, is meant “to protect the reputation and meaning of military decorations and medals.”
Some First Amendment experts worry that criminalizing speech about symbols is a dangerous business and is reminiscent of laws against flag burning that the Supreme Court has held unconstitutional.
“If the government cannot under the First Amendment compel reverence when it comes to our nation’s highest symbol,” asked Ronald K. L. Collins, a scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington, “why then can it compel reverence when it comes to lesser forms of symbolic expression?”
In California, where Mr. Alvarez continues to sit on the board of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District, an elected position, patience is wearing thin.
“There’s no question he’s pathological,” said Bob G. Kuhn, the board’s president, recounting some of what has come out of Mr. Alvarez’s mouth. “He’s had three helicopter accidents. He’s been shot 16 times. These are all fabrications.”
But Mr. Kuhn said the board was powerless to expel Mr. Alvarez, who continues to receive $200 per meeting and health insurance. The board has censured him, though, for putting a woman he falsely claimed was his wife on the board’s health plan.
At first, Mr. Kuhn said, he took no position on the wisdom of the criminal prosecution of his colleague.
“But we’ve had 40 or 50 veterans parade before our board, asking him to publicly apologize,” Mr. Kuhn said. “He has refused to do that. With that said, I have no problem with the prosecution.”
Mr. Alvarez is facing the possibility of two years in prison and a $200,000 fine. He is represented by a federal public defender, Brianna J. Fuller, and he has filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the First Amendment protects him.
Free speech experts say the motion is unlikely to succeed.
“On the other hand,” Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote on his blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, “the legal issue is not as clear as one at first might think.” He cited the somewhat muddy Supreme Court jurisprudence in this area and an October decision of the Washington Supreme Court that struck down a state law making it illegal for politicians to lie about candidates for public office.
“The best remedy for false or unpleasant speech is more speech, not less speech,” Justice James M. Johnson of the Washington Supreme Court wrote. It is hard to muster much sympathy for Mr. Alvarez. But it is easy to envision cases in which laws to protect symbols are misused.
In 1970, for instance, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Daniel J. Schacht, who had protested the Vietnam War in what he called a street skit, for violating a law that allowed actors to wear military uniforms only “if the portrayal does not tend to discredit” the armed forces.
Rodney A. Smolla, the dean of the Washington and Lee University School of Law and the author of several books on free speech, said Mr. Alvarez’s case was different.
“My instinct is that there probably would not be a winning First Amendment defense because of the confluence of two factors,” Professor Smolla said. First, he said, it is hard to identify anything positive Mr. Alvarez contributed to any debate. Second, he said, “the integrity of the honors that the military bestows is very important.”
Mr. Alvarez did not respond to a request for an interview, and Ms. Fuller, his lawyer, declined to comment, citing office policy.
Not long after he was indicted, Mr. Alvarez told The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin that his comments had been taken out of context. On learning they had been taped, he changed his story.
“I was just nervous, saying anything,” Mr. Alvarez said. “There’s no truth to that. What harm did that do to them?”
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
jesse mcbeth should be next.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:02 amIn my humble opinion, he is a scumbag.
However, I believe he has the right to be a scumbag and say scumbag things. This is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Folks, we can’t have it both ways. We have to allow for things like this, or we are no better than the Oppressive Liberals that want to pick and choose whatever’s convenient for their agendas.
We are BETTER THAN THAT.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:35 amScumbag. Leave it to California to elect an obviously unhinged person to a position in government.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:57 amProsecute him to the full extent of the law.
I’m not sure if there is a problem with this.
We making lying about certain things a crime in this county - it’s a crime to lie to the federal government (see 18 U.S.C. 1001), it’s a crime to say you’re a doctor when you’re not. What’s the difference between making it a crime to lie about your military employment record? It’s not censoring ideas.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:01 amKBAR I agree with you in principle, but principles don’t necessarily win the fights that need to be fought.
Sometimes it is necessary to fight fire with fire. There things that cannot be uttered without being labled and possibly prosecuted as a racist for hate speech crimes.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:54 amTrue enough. Also, don’t forget fraud or misrepresentation. But I will stand by my belief that a person has a right to say whatever they want. However, they should also be prepared to accept the repercussions of their words. If this Alvarez lied about serving, lied about being wounded, and lied about winning the Medal of Honor (in 1987?), then he damn well better be ready to face any and all consequences.
I should have said that in my earlier post.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:20 amKBAR those consequences also include being prosecuted. Thank you for making my point clearer.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Howie, my pleasure. I think we are both in agreement. In my first post, I failed to mention that there are always consequences.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:04 amScumbag…
THEY ARE NOT WORTHY OF YOUR CONCERN AND TRUTH BE TOLD – IN THE PIT OF THEIR COWARDLY HEARTS – THEY WISH THEY COULD BE LIKE YOU.
LTC Randolph C. White Jr
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbOcJ6kqJAA
March 18th, 2008 at 11:15 amYou have the right to speak - the Government can’t intefere with the content of whatever message you want to send (you hate George Bush, think the US should be governed by Islamic law).
But there is a long list of things you can’t make misrepresentations or false statements about. This is no different.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:06 pmI would be a damned fool to think Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, & Pilots WILLINGLY put their lives on the line so their FELLOW countrymen can be a bunch of motor-mouthed bubbleheads.
This modern day definition of ‘Free Speech’ never computed with me.
Freedom of speech is deciding whether or not you want ice-cream or pie for dessert. Silly shit like that.
This charlatan wouldn’t make a good roll of toilet paper in the outhouses of Gehenna.
March 19th, 2008 at 3:32 amScumbag. Definitely a scumbag. Free Speech shouldn’t be something you’re allowed to hide behind when you utter falsehoods and mis-truths. I don’t know if he should go to jail for lying, but everyone should know who this guy is so they can judge him for what he is. Why he would lie about being a Marine makes no sense unless he was a pathological liar, desperate to have the attention. Someone would have called him on it at some point and he had to know that.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:31 amSedition, fraud, slander, etc., are not covered by the First Amendment, outside the delusions of lefties. Sadly, all too many of them are judges.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:23 amI would say scumbag iggy
People cant go around pretending they are cops. why should you be allowed to go around pretending to be a Marine, let alone a medal of honor recipient. There are lots of perks that come with the Medal of Honor, including instant credibility and for damn sure respect. as it should be. And the same should go for being a Servicemember in general. We cant have people going around soiling that reputation. Thats how i see it at least
March 21st, 2008 at 5:25 amFree Speech my ass!!! Free speech is about opinions, not lies. Send this asshole to the sandbox and leave him in the there.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:14 pm