Don't blame me if this answer is not up to the "Rubric Standards"!!! :) hope this helps!
Explanation:
  The Stolen Valor Act was signed into law in 2006. According to this law, it is a crime to make false claims about receiving military medals and awards. The law banned “fraudulent claims surrounding the receipt of the Medal of Honor, the distinguished-service cross, the Navy cross, the Air Force cross, the Purple Heart, and other decorations and medals awarded by the President or the Armed Forces of the United States” (Stolen Valor Act of 2005). According to the law, these fraudulent claims “damage the reputation and meaning of such decorations and medals” (Stolen Valor Act of 2005). A person guilty of violating the Stolen Valor Act could receive a fine, imprisonment up to six months, or both penalties together.
  Abel Fields was a 39-year-old resident of a city in California. In 2011, he attended a city meeting about public safety. He spoke publicly at the meeting, explaining that his military experience gave him the knowledge to speak with authority about public safety issues. During his speech, he claimed that he had served in the military for eight years. He also claimed that he had received the Purple Heart, a prestigious medal. Each of Fields’s claims was false. He had never served in the military, and he had never received a medal. He was prosecuted and convicted under the Stolen Valor Act. Because he was found guilty, he was sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000. Fields appealed his decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He argued that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional, and that his right to free speech had been violated. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in his favor. However, the government appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Â
  This excerpt comes from the opinion of the court of appeals judge who ruled in Fields’s favor. The Stolen Valor Act applies only to pure speech. It does not consider whether this speech is damaging to others or profitable to the person that has lied. Instead, it imposes a criminal penalty of up to a year of imprisonment, plus a fine, simply for speaking or writing a false statement. Laws that prevent harmful false speech center on lies told about others. A lie that is told about another person can be difficult to reverse. It can permanently damage that person’s reputation and well-being. However, a lie told about oneself and one’s own accomplishments is easier to reverse through other speech. Indeed, in Mr. Fields’s case, an effective way to reverse Mr. Fields’s falsehoods is to simply point out his lie. The First Amendment empowers the public to use its own free speech in response to Mr. Fields. A law is unnecessary. The Stolen Valor Act is not only unnecessary, it also sets a dangerous precedent. If future acts follow the same principles, the government may forbid speech solely because it is a lie, even if that lie does not create damage. We agree that most intentionally false speech is not worthy of constitutional protection. We also agree that intentional and damaging lies can be made the subject of criminal law. However, we cannot adopt a rule as broad as the Stolen Valor Act without trampling on the fundamental right to freedom of speech.
