One can only imagine, then, the butterflies that took up residence in the digestive system of one Jonathan Libby, who recently argued for the respondent in U.S. v Alvarez.
Mr. Libby's client, Xavier Alvarez, had been convicted of violating the Stolen Valor Act, a 2006 federal law that made it a crime for a person to falsely claim that he had been awarded a medal for service in the armed forces. It turns out that Alvarez, an elected member of the Board of Directors of the Three Valleys Water District in Claremount, California, stated to his fellow members during a meeting: “I’m a retired marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medial of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. I'm still around.”
These statements were lies—he never served in the Marines or received a Medal of Honor. In fact, Alvarez had frequently lied about his accomplishments in the past, often fabricating sensational stories about his purported military service.
After his conviction, Alvarez appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the conviction, holding that the Stolen Valor Act violates the First Amendment because it unconstitutionally limits free speech and is not narrow enough to meet a “compelling government interest.”
So that brings us to the argument before the Supreme Court. After hearing from the U.S. Solicitor General, the Court called on deputy public defender Jonathan Libby:
MR. LIBBY: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:
The Stolen Valor Act criminalizes pure speech in the form of bare falsity, a mere telling of a lie. It doesn't matter whether the lie was told in a public meeting or in a private conversation with a friend or family member. And the law punishes false claims to a military award regardless of whether harm results or even is likely to result in an individual case.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What is -- what is the First Amendment value in a lie, pure lie?
MR. LIBBY: Just a pure lie? There can be a number of values. There is the value of personal autonomy.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: The value of what?
MR. LIBBY: Personal autonomy.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What does that mean?
MR. LIBBY: Well, that we get to -- we get to exaggerate and create -
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No, not exaggerate -- lie.
MR. LIBBY: Well, when we create our own persona, we're often making up things about ourselves that we want people to think about us, and that can be valuable. Samuel Clemens creating Mark Twain. That was creating a persona, and he made things up about himself -
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, but that was for literary purposes. No one is suggesting you can't write a book or tell a story about somebody who earned a Medal of Honor and it's a fictional character, so he obviously didn't. It just seems to me very different.
MR. LIBBY: Perhaps. But there are other things. In addition to the fact that people tell lies allows us to appreciate truth better.
So Mr. Libby would have the Court create constitutional doctrine on the psychobabble of "personal autonomy" and "lies allow us to appreciate truth better." I think Mr. Libby may have spent too many years in the public defender's office or in California or both. How about "murder is an expression of self-esteem and helps us appreciate life better" -- does that argument work for you?
I cannot predict the outcome of this case -- the Court will be sympathetic to Congress's intentions, but it has applied the First Amendment pretty broadly -- but I pray that, even if Alvarez prevails, the Court does not turn its hallowed courtroom into a haven for arguments more appropriately made on the Jerry Springer or Dr. Phil shows.