Court tosses law about false claims on medals, affects Denver case

The Supreme Court decision didn't deal with Denver resident Rick Strandlof's case directly, but the justice's ruling tosses out the case against him.

The court voted 6-3 in favor of Xavier Alvarez, a former local elected official in California who falsely said he was a decorated war veteran and had pleaded guilty to violating the 2006 law, known as the Stolen Valor Act. The law, enacted when the U.S. was at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, was aimed at people making phony claims of heroism in battle.

The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ordered that Alvarez's conviction be thrown out.

"Though few might find respondent's statements anything but contemptible, his right to make those statements is protected by the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech and expression. The Stolen Valor Act infringes upon speech protected by the First Amendment," Kennedy said.

Strandlof claimed in 2008 that he was a Purple Heart recipient after being wounded during the Battle of Fallujah. He founded the Colorado Veterans Alliance after lying about military service. He's also appeared in political ads after tricking politicians too.

After he was exposed, the United States Attorney for the District of Colorado charged him with violating the Stolen Valor Act.

A district judge threw out the case saying the law violated the First Amendment.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ruling.

The Supreme Court's decision puts a final end to Strandlof's case, according to 9NEWS Legal Analyst Scott Robinson.

Strandlof issued a statement to 9Wants to Know reporter Jace Larson.

"Today's ruling does not negate the fact that my past behaviors hurt people. What I did was wrong. Rather than it being an end, my hope is that this ruling is the beginning of a process of reconciliation that will allow for amends to be made for those wrongs," Strandlof wrote.

Strandlof also made news in 2011, when 9Wants to Know learned he had tricked Denver's Jewish Community into thinking he was Jewish and had served in the Israeli Defense Forces.

Strandlof lost several of his friends when they learned he lied to them.

MORE ON JUSTICES' DECISION

The high court has in recent years rejected limits on speech. The justices struck down a federal ban on videos showing graphic violence against animals and rejected a state law intended to keep violent video games away from children. The court also turned aside the attempt by the father of a dead Marine to sue fundamentalist church members who staged a mocking protest at his son's funeral. In 1989, the court said the Constitution protects the burning of the American flag.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented in the Alvarez case.

"These lies have no value in and of themselves, and proscribing them does not chill any valuable speech," Alito said. "By holding that the First Amendment nevertheless shields these lies, the court breaks sharply from a long line of cases recognizing that the right to free speech does not protect false statements that inflict real harm and serve no legitimate interest."

THE ALVAREZ CASE

Alvarez made his claims by way of introducing himself as an elected member of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in Pomona, Calif. There is nothing to suggest that he received anything in exchange or that listeners especially believed him.

The government had defended the law as necessary to punish impostors to protect the integrity of military medals.

But Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan said in a separate opinion that there were ways for the government to stop liars "in less restrictive ways." One possibility would be to "insist upon a showing that the false statement caused a specific harm or at least was material, or focus its coverage on lies most likely to be harmful or on contexts where such lies are most likely to cause harm," Breyer said.

Civil liberties groups, writers, publishers and news media outlets, including The Associated Press, told the justices they worried that the law, and especially the administration's defense of it, could lead to more attempts by government to regulate speech.

Then-General George Washington established military decorations in 1782, seven years before he was elected as the first president. Washington also prescribed severe military punishment for soldiers who purported to be medal winners but weren't.

It long has been a federal crime to wear unearned medals, but mere claims of being decorated were beyond the reach of law enforcement. The Stolen Valor Act aimed to solve that problem, and won significant support in Congress during a time of war.

Alvarez's lawyers challenged the law by acknowledging their client's lies, but also insisting that they harmed no one.

"Statutes suppressing or restricting speech must be judged by the sometimes inconvenient principles of the First Amendment," Kennedy said. "By this measure, the statutory provisions under which respondent was convicted must be held invalid, and his conviction must be set aside."

Read Jace Larson's blog entry for a more personal look at Rick Strandlof's life

Have a comment or tip for investigative reporter Jace Larson? Call him at 303-871-1432 or e-mail him
jace.larson@9news.com

Blog and Bio

(KUSA-TV © 2012 Multimedia Holdings Corporation)