Lost in the sturm and drang of the Supreme Court's Obamacare decision last week was the court's ruling on the Stolen Valor Act. Congress passed the legislation in 2005 that made it a federal crime to lie about receiving the Medal of Honor and other military awards.

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled the act violated the First Amendment right to free speech. That was a blow to many who cherish the heroism and sacrifice uniformed men and women make in service to their nation to earn those awards. Falsely claiming that honor is a cowardly and offensive act.

However, like many forms of unpatriotic speech — the court previously has upheld Americans' First Amendment right to burn the U.S. flag and to protest military funerals — it should not be criminalized.

The case of United States v. Alvarez was different, though, in that it wasn't addressing just repugnant acts but also falsehoods. Six justices believed the Stolen Valor Act as written was too broad and unlawfully restricted free speech. But the court fractured on what judicial standards to apply to protect lies.

Four justices — Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor — opined that lies are constitutionally protected speech unless they fall within certain categories: defamation, perjury, fraud aimed at getting valuable goods or services, unsworn lies to government officials about official matters, and lies that claim that one is a government official or is speaking on behalf of the government.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, indicated Congress could rewrite the act to pass muster. "For example," he wrote, "a statute that requires a showing that the false statement caused specific harm or is focused on lies more likely to be harmful or on contexts where such lies are likely to cause harm."

Three justices — Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — dissented, arguing that lies are basically categorically unprotected by the First Amendment. Although the dissent questions whether lying on your resume about being high school valedictorian shouldn't, as a matter of policy, be banned, the justices believe those laws should be left to the political process.

Government need not criminalize every distasteful conduct. Lying can be addressed in civil torts (libel, defamation, etc.) A political candidate who lies about his military service can be dealt with by the electorate. The biggest check against these untruths is to publicly expose the liars and submit them to the ridicule and shame they deserve — employ "counterspeech," in Kennedy's words.

"The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true," Kennedy wrote. "This is the ordinary course in a free society."

In the context of Stolen Valor, the primary interest government has in prosecuting these lies is if they are used to secure a material benefit, particularly a government one, such as a monetary payment. That is fraud. Perhaps Congress could rewrite the act to reflect that narrow constitutional exception.

Otherwise, the fact that lies about military honors offend those who genuinely earned them does not satisfy the heavy burden on government to justify restricting speech. One of the freedoms Medal of Honors fought to defend was a robust First Amendment. The court's ruling maintains it.

REPRINTED FROM THE PANAMA CITY NEWS HERALD