Can you solve for question $1,2$ and $3?$ case $2\mathrm{.}1$ United States v$.$ Alvarez, $567$ U$.$S $709(2012)$ provide evidence or a arrect $$n$$ detween tne statute and tne injury to ve prevented in protecting ine government interest.

WORDS OF THE COURT: Judicial Review "The First Amendment requires that the Government's chosen restriction on the

speech at issue be 'actually necessary' to achieve its interest. There must be a direct causal link between the restriction imposed and

the injury to be prevented. The link between the Government's interest in protecting the integrity of the military honors system and

the Act's restriction on the false claims of liars like respondent has not been shown.... It must be acknowledged that when a

pretender claims the Medal to be his own, the lie might harm the Government by demeaning the high purpose of the award,

diminishing the honor it confirms, and creating the appearance that the Medal is awarded more often than is true. Furthermore, the

lie may offend the true holders of the Medal.... Yet these interests do not satisfy the Government's heavy burden when it seeks to

regulate protected speech. The Government points to no evidence to support its claim that the public's general perception of

military awards is diluted by false claims such as those made by Alvarez."

Case Questions

The dissenting justices argued that allowing First Amendment protection for statements that are lies was a dangerous and unwis$$

path. They also concluded that the link between the statute and the government's interest was more than enough to satisfy any

constitutional scrutiny. Are the dissenting arguments compelling? Why or why not?

Could Congress have crafted a different law that would have achieved its intended result but survived a constitutional challenge?

How?

Focus on Critical Thinking: At what point do falsehoods become so serious as to warrant a restriction of the speaker's speech

rights?

Separacion of Powers