« Former Sierra Madre CM Fired | Home | Monrovia Youth Commission Fund Raiser Weds 3/26 »
The Xavier Alvarez Story, Part I: Why Xavier Alvarez?
By Murray Bessette | March 25, 2008
Intrigued by recent coverage of Xavier Alvarez in the New York Times, Murray Bessette, a Ph.D. candidate at Claremont Graduate University, has kindly offered to write a series of posts getting new readers up to speed on the saga and exploring the deeper issues brought up by Alvarez’s, ahem, “unique” defense of his outlandish claims, including the oft-repeated assertion that he won the Medal of Honor.
To quickly recap: we know beyond doubt that Xavier Alvarez claimed to be a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor. We also know beyond doubt that this claim is false. Furthermore, we know that to make this claim falsely is illegal under the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. But given the foregoing, why should any of us care (beyond the fact that this man is involved in decisions related to water and we live in a desert)? What is at stake?
Well, certainly more than the ridiculous delusions of one man. The defense Alvarez’s lawyers assert goes directly to the heart of the matter: why, when, where, and how can the government constitutionally restrict speech. As Eugene Volokh, over at The Volokh Conspiracy, observed, “the legal issue is not as clear as one might at first think.” And though Alvarez is a risible character, the fundamental issues merit more than a laugh.
The following series of posts will explore the general question of the meaning of free speech in the particular context of the arguments asserted by the attorneys of both the defendant and the prosecution in the case of Xavier Alvarez. Whenever possible, the discussion will be supplemented by other materials deemed to be pertinent. Of course, that necessarily includes revisiting Mr. Alvarez’s spectacularly entertaining claims, which I’ll do tomorrow.
Last 5 posts in Main Page
- Feed Portantino's Election Reelection Campaign - July 23rd, 2008
- Alvarez Waterboarded! - July 23rd, 2008
- Morning Linkfest: 7 Reasons to Hate Corporations - July 23rd, 2008
- Even the Cost of Underwear Is Increasing - July 23rd, 2008
- Pasadena Has a New City Clerk - July 23rd, 2008
Topics: Main Page, Government, Pomona |
March 25th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
As much as I deplore the representations made by Alvarez, you have to appreciate his stroke of good luck. It appears that he actually was assigned a competent public defender….maybe creative is a better word.
Of course, free speech does mean you are allowed to make false representations especially when you stand to benefit personally from such false claims…as in this case. Free speech is regulated in a variety of cases and this one, I suspect, will be one of those cases.
It is a bit like making false representations to defraud someone of their assets/money….here it appears the citizens/officials were defrauded so that Alvarez could benefit by being in a public office and receive the benefits associated with that position.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
oops….meant to say free speech does NOT mean you are allowed to make false representations…..
March 26th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
[…] [Previous posts in this series: Part I, Why Xavier Alvarez?] […]
March 27th, 2008 at 12:01 am
[…] Part I: Why Xavier Alvarez? […]
March 28th, 2008 at 9:45 am
[…] Part I: Why Xavier Alvarez? […]
March 31st, 2008 at 12:32 pm
[…] Part I: Why Xavier Alvarez? […]
April 1st, 2008 at 6:17 am
[…] Part I: Why Xavier Alvarez? […]
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:22 am
[…] Part I: Why Xavier Alvarez? […]