React to the answer below for the following questions: Recently, Congress passed the Stolen Valor Act, which made it a federal offense for anyone to lie about receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor. A man giving a speech falsely tells his audience he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for service in Iraq. The man is charged under the Act. The prosecutors argue that the law is necessary to preserve the prestige of such a high honor. The man argues that the government is suppressing his free speech rights through this Act.

Point for Discussion:The courts are often forced to balance competing interests in reaching a decision. Which side do you think has the better argument? Can you think of ways that the Act can be amended to further the interest of the Act, without infringing on freedom of speech?

Answer: "In my opinion, the side that has the better argument is the prosecutors because the Stolen Valor Act protects the integrity earned by service men and women and the accolades they attained during their military career. It prosecutes anyone who falsely and willingly presents themselves as a person that served in the military and/or earned metals, awards, etc. The charges came upon the prosecuted individual not because expressed his right to free speech but because he lied about it and violated the Stolen Valor Act. I honestly don't believe the act infringed on the freedom of speech because it's not about the fact that he spoke, it was what he spoke. Yet, if there was any way to amend the Act, I would add the words "with substantial evidence/proof". The only way a person could not be guilty of violating the Stolen Valor Act is if they have proof."

-What do you think of this answer?

-which part would you agree or disagree?

-what are the strong and weak points in this answer?