Question

understanding the majority opinion
the stolen valor act is not only unnecessary, it also sets a dangerous precedent. if future acts follow the same principles, the government may forbid speech solely because it is a lie, even if that lie does not create damage. we agree that most intentionally false speech is not worthy of constitutional protection. we also agree that intentional and damaging lies can be made the subject of criminal law. however, we cannot adopt a rule as broad as the stolen valor act without trampling on the fundamental right to freedom of speech.
which statement summarizes the justices argument in the court of appeals opinion?
○ lying is not protected by the first amendment; only truths are protected.
○ the government should not be singling out military service awards for legal protection.
○ the government cannot make one form of lies illegal without making all lies illegal.
○ the stolen valor act could allow the government to limit future speech.

Explanation:

The text emphasizes that the Stolen Valor Act sets a dangerous precedent. If future acts follow its principles, the government may forbid speech just because it's a lie (even without damage). This implies the act could lead to government limiting future speech. The first option about the First Amendment is contrary to the text (the text doesn't say lies aren't protected, just that overly broad laws are bad). The second option about singling out military awards isn't the main focus. The third option about making all lies illegal is an over - stretch (the text is about the precedent, not all lies).

Answer:

The Stolen Valor Act could allow the government to limit future speech.