The Court Case Of Abel Fields

Gideon V. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963) is the case I have chose to brief. According to US courts website “Clarence Earl Gideon was an unlikely hero. He was a man with an eighth-grade education who ran away from home when he was in middle school. He spent much of his early adult life as a drifter, spending time in and out of prisons for nonviolent crimes. ”The Petitioner within the case was Clarence Earl Gideon.

The stolen valor act is about lying about having military medals and the supreme made it illegal in 2012. People were claiming that they were in the military to get money and properties. I think it is a really good thing that there is a law in place for this. John Abel was charged with robbing a bank with two other men. In order to distract Respondents witness the prosecution offered testimony that he and the witness were part of a prison gang that promoted perjury on the of fellow gang members..

The case was settled in a liberal 5-3 decision. The decision was that the Court believed Welsh’s belief to have met the test and so he was entitled to conscientious objector status and reversal of his conviction. Mr. Justice White along with the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Stewart were the ones with a dissenting opinion. Here is a small part of their dissenting opinion, “Whether or not § 6(j) is constitutional, Welsh had no First Amendment excuse for refusing to report for induction. If it is contrary to the express will of Congress to exempt Welsh, as I think it is, then there no warrant for saving the religious exemption and the statue by redrafting it in this court to include Welsh and all others like him.”

He states that this case deals with whether or not opinions are also protected by the First Amendment. He notes that Loraine Journal derives their argument of opinions being protected from Gertz, going on to say that the Supreme Court did not believe that Gertz meant to establish any sort of protection. He then introduces a phrase such as, “In my opinion, Tom is a liar”. According to Rehnquist, the problem with this phrase is that, despite the author claiming it to be his opinion, it can still be interpreted by the reader as being a fact.

The Supreme court accepted the case. Fields attorneys are arguing that the Stolen Valor act is unconstitutional. Field attorneys argued that Fields cannot be convicted because he lied. The First amendment protects speech that does not directly harm others. Fields attorneys claim that Fields had lied about himself, and by lying about himself he only hurt himself.

The blog was a personal blog, made by Dr. Foster himself, not used or monitored by Hamilton University nor used in the ordinary course of his profession as a teacher, and wherein he posted information beyond that of the mere academic. (Complaint, R. 5, para. 10). Furthermore, while the district court makes the argument that due to the fact that debate is an “official duty” that is ordinarily “pursuant to” his profession, debate is also an aspect of being a citizen. Garcetti, 547 U.S. 410 at 421. It could hardly be said that since a lawyer’s job is to argue the law, it would thus be true that every time he has an argument about the law he is acting “pursuant to his official duties” of his profession, and the same cant be said to be true here.

In the year 2006, the Stolen Valor Act made it illegal to make medals of Honor. The case brought forth to us describes issues brought about by this act. In United States v. Fields, Abel Fields attended a meeting where he proclaimed that he had military experience, and that he earned a Purple Heart. He had made false statements, and in turn was convicted, and had to pay a $1,000 fine. Fields felt that his First Amendment rights had been violated.

It further postulates that such commentary on public figures is not only legal, but also healthy — implicitly making the argument that Free Speech is an essential feature of participation in democracy, and that public figures must bow to such caricatures in exchange for the power that society has bestowed upon them. It summarises this belief with a quote taken directly from the Hustler v. Falwell judgement: "At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas. Freedom to speak one 's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty, but essential to the quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. In the world of debate about public affairs many things done with motives that are less than admirable are nonetheless protected by the First

Tejinder Singh, writer and contributor of Scotus, argues that the stolen Valor Act is "unconstitutional because the government had not shown that the statute is necessary to protect the integrity of the system of military honors . . . [and] the Stolen Valor Act posed a significant—and perhaps unique—threat to protected speech. " On the contrary, the Stolven Valor Act does not violate the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, but instead enforces the appreciation of our soldiers. If Fields had been convicted because he preached that he deserved the Purple Heart and contributed as much as an eight-year veteran of the military, then the Stolven Valor Act would have violated his First Amendment rights because he would be denied to publically share his opinion, and thus denied his freedom of

Abel Fields was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act for falsely claiming he had received the Purple Heart. Fields has never served in the military and therefore has never received a military award. At his first trial, Fields was found guilty for violating the Stolen Valor Act and was sentenced to a fine. Fields then appealed his sentence and the Court of Appeals overturned his conviction citing that Fields’ First Amendment rights were violated. The government then appealed the Court of Appeals’ decision and the case was sent to the Supreme Court.

The article argues that the courts should only view harmful speech in the same eyes and rule them the same as if they were conduct harms. The source then discusses how many scholars believe that freedom of speech only applies when the benefits outweigh the harms, regarding what is being said. The article does a good job of approaching the problem through a semi-neutral lens. The article clearly lets its opinion be known at times; however, it approaches the opposite side of the argument in a fair manner. The article will be incredibly beneficial because it discusses when freedom of speech should not apply with a neutral approach.

History and Heritage of the Purple Heart Orlando Swinger Senior Enlisted Academy Class 200 Khaki History and Heritage of the Purple Heart Some Sailors wear their heart on their sleeve while others wear their heart on their chest. Senior Enlisted leaders must understand the significance of military awards because they tell the story of a Sailor’s achievements and sacrifices. This paper will cover the origin and the evolution of the Purple Heart award. Body

Despite detailing the unfair treatment of baseball players at the words of the Reserve Clause, he never clarifies exactly how it is unconstitutional. He even mentions at several points where he talked to a lawyer friend about the case, as well as the executive board of the Players Association (130-131), but he doesn’t go into his specific legal arguments. While no one can argue for the Reserve Clause in terms of morality, if the clause doesn’t technically violate any laws in the Constitution, then the case is probably a lost cause. He closes out the article by trying to show the unconstitutionality of the clause using an analogy of an accountant in the same position (Flood 132), and if he had done the same thing while outlining exact violations of the Constitution in the process, this could have been a great article. As it is, it’s a very compelling thinkpiece that falls short with actual

One of those cases is US v Alvarez: a case that would see Xavier Alvarez prosecuted for falsely claiming to have received a Medal of Honor. Alvarez would have violated the Stolen Valor Act: an act that would criminalize those who have falsely claimed to receive a prestigious military award. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Alvarez, stating that the Stolen Valor Act goes against Xavier’s First Amendment rights. (US Courts) A similar case involved the Agency for International Development and the Alliance for Open Society International.

People have the tendency to take the First Amendment for granted, but some tend to use it to their favor. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. His article involves those who misinterpret the First Amendment as their own works or constantly use it as an excuse to express their attitudes and desires about a certain subject matter. He expresses his personal opinions against those who consistently use the First Amendment as a weapon to defend themselves from harm of criticism.