“It’s not “speech.” The protected elements of “speech” are the right to voice (or say print or act out) an opinion.”
No, that is untrue. The courts have very clearly ruled that nearly any kind of expression can qualify as “protected speech”, and that the government is especially restricted as to any type of law that limits the content, as opposed to the manner or circumstances of that expression. Unless the speech falls in an unprotected class, such as obscenity, the government must prove a “compelling state interest”, and the law must be written as narrowly as possible to protect that interest while allowing as much expression as possible, or the courts will strike it down.
If what you propose is true, then so-called modern art like “Piss Christ” would not be protected speech, since it voices no opinion, as such art is entirely up to the audience to interpret. Yet that kind of art is very much protected speech.
“This IS fraud for benefit, and the law simply codifies it.”
Again, if it is fraud, then it’s already illegal and you don’t need another law to prosecute it. The only reason I can possibly imagine you would want another law is if you would like to prosecute speech for which you can’t find evidence that meets the legal standard of fraud. You’ve yet to provide any alternative explanation of why you would need another law, if that is not the case.
re: “compelling state interest.”
If it may please the Court, I would argue that legitimate recognition of those who have often sacrificed so much for their country, and more importantly, for their fellow citizens constitutes “compelling state interest.”
This is especially true in the case of those who were drafted, who did not want to serve, but did so heroically.