The Supreme Court recently reviewed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Alvarez and held the Stolen Valor Act (SVA) to be facially unconstitutional. There was no intent requirement or harm requirement under the plain language of the statute, and therefore the SVA made words, and words alone, criminal. This Article argues that the Supreme Court properly overturned the SVA because the statute violated fundamental First Amendment values and significantly departed from previous, appropriate legislation regulating truth and falsity. Historically, there have been limited categories of speech that are exempt from First Amendment protection, but false speech is not one of them. The plurality in Alvarez noted the sheer breadth of the SVA to cover all false statements made at any time, in any place, to any person. The SVA was subject to strict scrutiny, and ultimately, the plurality found that the government failed to carry its burden to prove a causal link between a negative public perception of military award and lies about military valor. This Article also discusses three examples of the Supreme Court’s willingness to strike down other laws that serve an admirable purpose but appear to threaten First Amendment rights. In conclusion, this Article proposes both public and private alternatives to the SVA.