Free speech allows lies about medals

The prospect that Congress might move to outlaw other kinds of statements understandably prompted rights groups, writers, publishers, and news media outlets to urge that the Supreme Court overturn the Valor Act.

A welcome and increasingly rare 6-3 court majority did that last week, ruling that Alvarez's "contemptible" lie was shielded by the First Amendment.

The issue really wasn't what Alvarez falsely claimed. At stake was whether the government could decree that otherwise harmless speech on any subject could be prosecuted.

The emotionally charged ruling that the Valor Act was unconstitutional was in step with the high court's past defense of speech rights — from neo-Nazi groups marching to antigay activists disrupting military funerals.

It was disappointing that conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas dissented. Alito's contention that Alvarez' claims were "false statements that inflict real harm" simply was not convincing.

To see the Supreme Court finally break free of its typical 5-4 split on any issue has to stand as a rallying cry — in this case, for the fundamental freedom of Americans to speak their mind.