First they are not abridging the content of any speech. The medal wearer is free to say whatever he wants. If his opinion is that he should be allowed to wear a purple heart, he can pontificate till he is blue in the face about why he should be allowed to wear a purple heart.
Secondly, the Federal government certainly does have a compelling interest in making it illegal for him to wear the Purple Heart, as the Executive Branch is charged with running the military, including the administration of military honors. Undermining the system of military honors does hurt the governments interest.
Thirdly, you keep arguing elsewhere that there are already laws about fraud and that if the person wearing the uniform was committing fraud, he should be charged with fraud rather than a law specific to the fraudulent wearing of medals. Your view seems to presuppose that there is a certain number of laws against fraud that should be passed and no more. This makes no sense and is silly.
“First they are not abridging the content of any speech.”
Yes, they are, the 1st amendment covers all manner of expression, not just verbal speech. Telling people they cannot wear certain things is abridging the content of expression.
“Secondly, the Federal government certainly does have a compelling interest in making it illegal for him to wear the Purple Heart,”
No, it doesn’t, because it must rise to the level of a “crucial” interest rather than simply a “preferred interest”, or it fails the test. Obviously, since we have had a functional state for over 2 centuries without this law, there is no crucial interest here, so it fails that test.
“Undermining the system of military honors does hurt the governments interest.”
Maybe, but that only rises to the level of a “preferred” interest, and state interests that are only “preferred” are insufficient to justify abridging Constitutional protections, because defending Constitutional protections is, in itself, a crucial interest of the state.
“Your view seems to presuppose that there is a certain number of laws against fraud that should be passed and no more”
No, that is incorrect. My point is that, if he truly were committing fraud, as people claim, then he could be charged under the existing laws and proven guilty in a court of law. The fact that people insist a new law needs to be passed just demonstrates that there probably isn’t sufficient evidence to charge them with fraud and prove it in the first place.
In fact, that was the entire purpose of this law, if you go and real the language of it. They attempted to get around the requirements to prove fraud by inventing an entirely new type of crime and pronouncing it equivalent to fraud, in order to skirt 1st amendment protections. Yet, the crime they defined does not resemble fraud, since there is no human victim, and no tangible harm.
Also, after reviewing the text of both the original 2005 Stolen Valor act, and the recent 2012 variant, it seems clear that merely playing dressup is not a violation unless the person is misrepresenting themselves as someone who really did earn those honors. The 2012 variation also requires the bit about tangible gain, but the intent to deceive was already a part of the 2005 bill. So “just playing dress up” is not the issue.