In the United States v. Alvarez case, Xavier Alvarez claimed to be a retired Marine who had received the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1987 for being repeatedly wounded by the same person in combat. These statements were made in an attempt to get him more respect from his peers. The claim was that Alvarez had violated the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 states that there are protections against claiming to have received some type of military honor, such as the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards ( GovTrack ). The Government argued that there was First Amendment value applicable to Alvarez's false statements and that his statements had caused harm to others. By making this statement, it was argued that the value of the Honor award would decrease and that this type of false speech falls into the same category as speaking falsely on behalf of the government or as a government official. However, because his statements were not made with the intention of obtaining financial advantage or special treatment, his false statements may not be illegal because they were made for the purpose of gaining respect. The case was decided 6-3 in favor of Alvarez. The Supreme Court declared the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor joined in a plurality of opinions. The plurality held that free speech under the First Amendment protects lying and misrepresentation. Although lying is frowned upon and socially unacceptable, the First Amendment protects these types of statements. Applying careful scrutiny to this case, the justices within the plurality found that the Stolen Valor Act was very broad and if it had more specific restrictions... middle of the paper... for Barnum, folks who have awards like the Purple Heart and the Medal of Honor, not only those who hold them, but also those who see others wearing them. Being a decorated veteran will change another person's perspective of someone, even without having met them before. Barnum argues that these lies are harmful to society and that the government must do its job to protect its symbols and awards (Barnum, 849). Works Cited Discourse restrictions that do not greatly affect the autonomy of speakers [comments] Constitutional Commentary, vol. 27, number 2 (autumn 2011), pp. 347-360 Volokh, Eugene 27 Constitution Commentary. 347 (2010-2011) False Valor: Amending the Stolen Valor Act to Conform to the First Amendment's Fraudulent Speech Exception [article]Washington Law Review, Vol. 86, number 4 (December 2011), pp. 841-874 Barnum, Jeffrey C. 86 Wash. L. Rev. 841 (2011)