A man named Jim Porter wrote an article for the Sierra Sun in which he discussed the Stolen Valor Act. This law has two provisions, the intent of which is to prohibit people from giving the impression they have won an honor such as a Purple Heart when in fact no such honor was bestowed upon them. He discussed two provisions of this law – 704 (a) which among other things makes it a crime to knowingly wear a medal which was bestowed by Congress in connection with the Armed Forces if that medal was fraudulently obtained, and 704 (b), which makes it a crime to falsely represent yourself as having been awarded a medal if in fact you haven’t (i.e., lie about having been awarded a Purple Heart).
In his article, he talked about how the court struck down a case which was raised pursuant to 704(b) of the Stolen Valor Act because they felt the defendant was entitled to free speech, even if that speech was untruthful.
So my question is, if there is a specific law which states you can’t lie about a particular thing, but this is unconstitutional because your right to free speech protects your untruthful speech, then what do we make of any other law which requires truthfulness?
What about the laws which require us to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when we testify in court or in a deposition, or sign a statement about truthfulness for employment applications, loan applications, college applications, etc.? What is the difference between lying when approaching this type of speech and lying about having earned a Purple Heart? In the case cited, the person was lying to try to make himself appear to be a more appealing candidate for public office. We should all be happy to know that our politicians can now justifiably lie as part of their free speech --- but I guess they have always known that.
