Is it legal to lie about a military medal?

MOBILE, Ala. (WALA) - A California man was one of the first charged under the "Stolen Valor Act", and the case has now made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

The man's attorneys argue that the lies harmed no one and should be protected under freedom of speech.

It's a case that's got a lot of people talking.

Retired Army Colonel Glenn Frazier was imprisoned by the Japanese during World War II, and he watched his friends suffer horrible deaths. He said he wasn't too pleased to hear about this case.

There’s no disputing Colonel Glenn Frazier's heroic service. His chest is full of ribbons that he’s earned, and there’s picture evidence that he was on the Bataan Death March.

Frazier spent three and a half years as a prisoner of war.

Frazier's joyful presence hides the hellish past that he endured while he was tortured by the Japanese. He hasn't been issued a Medal of Honor at this time, and he doesn't think it's a subject worth lying about.

"I think it’s an abuse of the Constitution. It's an abuse of our laws,” Frazier said. "It's not covered in the freedom of speech, as far as I'm concerned."

American rights have been protected by courageous heroes like Frazier, but he feels lying about a Medal of Honor crosses the line.

"It's degrading, and I have no respect for them. And it’s degrading to the whole system of government and military code," Frazier said.

This Supreme Court case does bring up an interesting argument.

"Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. If you start prosecuting someone for speaking in public, where does it end?" one man argued.

"There's a responsibility that comes along with that freedom of speech. And if you can't prove what you say you've done, you haven't done it," another man said.

Frazier has done more than enough for our country.

But there are some things he said he won't put up with.

"Stand up for what is right and not stand up for what is wrong. Wrong never done any good for any Americans,” Frazier sai.

The Supreme Court deliberated on this topic, and it appeared the justices were sharply divided over this sensitive issue.

A decision is expected by late June.