United States, Petitioner v. Xavier Alvarez - Essay Example

Task: United s, Petitioner v. Xavier Alvarez. Three Valleys Water District Board is an agency charged with various responsibilities. It is governed by seven member elected officials each tasked with supplementing the organization’s mission. Xavier Alvarez is a member of the board and has the right to represent the body within the capacity limited by organization’s laws. On 23rd July 2007, Mr. Alvarez got an invitation to speak in a joint meeting with Walnut Valley District Board. The anticipated speech was to touch on his background as an employ of the partner agency. Mr. Alvarex stated that he is a retired from the marine in 2001 after working for 25 years from 1987.

He justified the work by saying to have been acknowledged by the Congressional Medal of Honor while, in essence, this was not true. In addition, he had not worked for the military forces. Evidently, a federal law under the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 criminalizes lying regarding military decorations. Apart from protecting the name of the institution, the Act protected the valor of the actual people who had the ward. The military is a sensitive government body that should not have its name used to impress or gain respect.

By claiming to have worked and got a reward from the Congressional Medal of Honor, he committed an offense punishable by the United States law. If everybody is allowed to falsely claim an award in every institution, what will be the integrity of the wards? What role will they play to the actual people receiving them? Will it be a motivation or a formality because we cannot differentiate between the real holders and false one? These questions make Xavier Alvarez guilty for violating the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.

Undeniably, United States v. Cabrales stipulates that a person can only be charged after committing an offense.On the other hand, the first amendment right entitles everybody to a freedom of speech as in the case United States v. Stevens. The rights stipulate that people have the right to speak liberally without intrusion from the government. Interestingly, the amendment has limit of speech to obscenity, incitement, child pornography, true threats, criminal conduct or deformation. The question, therefore, is whether Stolen Valor Act protects lies about the military or it infringes and restricts speech with regards to its content.

Before pointing a finger to Xavier Alvarez, it is important to assess if the law is restrictive or constitutional. In conclusion, the case Lane v. Franks, the Supreme Court questions the extent of free speech with regards to qualified immunity. This subjects rulings into more scrutiny as punishable acts under the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 could be violating freedom of speech. Concurrently, Miller v. California case shows that a law can ban materials that are neither obscene nor harmful. Subsequently, responsible speech is important as evidenced in Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper.

In the case, awareness creation is imperative to educate and make amendments of speech limitations; however, Alvez is guilty according to Tory v. Cochran of using inappropriately the name of a sensitive institution.Works CitedAIR WISCONSIN AIRLINES CORP. v. HOEPER. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 27 April 2014. .ASHCROFT v. FREE SPEECH COALITION. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 27 April 2014. .TORY v. COCHRAN. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.

25 April 2014. .UNITED STATES v. ALVAREZ. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 27 April 2014. .UNITED STATES v. CABRALES. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 25 April 2014. .UNITED STATES v. STEVENS. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 27 April 2014. .