Abel Fields is on trial for violating the 2006 Stolen Valor Act.

Abel Fields appeared at a public

safety meeting, stating that because of his military background, he could speak with authority on the city's
public safety challenges. Fields reported that he served in the military for eight years and was awarded a
Purple Heart. A purple heart is a medal given to people who have been killed or wounded in combat. But
Fields did not receive a purple heart nor did he ever serve in the military.
With earlier examples like Texas vs Johnson(1989) and New York times Vs Sullivan(1964), we
believe that the Stolen Valor Act could let the government in future cases limit Speech, which would be
unconstitutional. Not to mention that this Stolen Valor act sets a very dangerous example. Free speech
could still be penalized if it is deemed untrue but not necessarily damaging, but to what end?
For example, yelling in a packed movie theater that there is a fire when there actually isn't is
intentionally damaging false speech. Therefore the person would not be protected by the first amendment
and would be punished. While damaging false speech can be punished, the Stolen Valor Act's significant
restrictions on what US citizens are legally entitled to say are a violation of the First Amendment. The
Court determines that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional as a result of this arrangement, and Fields
is just expressing his constitutional right to speak freely.