“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.
The First Amendment does not mention "crucial interest". And courts are not empowered to change what it says. This test, as you have presented it is ridiculous.
Consider for example, it is not in a "crucial" state interest that a certain person not be murdered. Heck, there are hundreds of millions of people in the US. Sure it would be preferable not to have a certain one be murdered...but hey its not a "crucial state interest".
Thus by the illogic you have been forced to employ in your rationalization of your position, an artist who wanted to freely express themselves in the artistic murder of an individual has a First Amendment right to do so.
Under the clear obvious meaning of the First Amendment though, he would have no right to murder, but would have the right to pontificate that murder should be legal until he is blue in the face.
Similarly he could argue fraud and impersonation of military officers be legal. Likely its not necessarily "crucial" that every form of fraud and such impersination be outlawed.
Nope sorry, murder, impersonating an officer, committing fraud in business, and all kinds of other activities have reasonable reasons for being illegal even if one choses to associate them with speech, it does not make the reason they ought be considered illegal go away. And it is absurd to insist that such reasons somehow rise to the level of what some judge thinks is "crucial" enough. Congress has the job of considering if something is important enough to outlaw. They are only forbidden from abridging content, not forbidden to pass laws against murder and fraud and theft etc even if there is some aspect of the murder fraud or theft that is expressing an opinion in some way.