But before jumping to the signalling suggestion, why not simply observe that goverment-enforced compulsory speech on certain subjects has a rather poor track record?

I wonder how Robin would explain his apparent fondness for “inside view” explanations involving signaling and social interactions, when they conflict with commonly-held “outside view” beliefs such as the above. Perhaps something along these lines?

Excess inside viewing usually continues even after folks are warned that outside viewing works better; after all, inside viewing better show offs inside knowledge and abilities.

The first is that the victim is not there to call the trial off. In practice, many times when someone has legal standing to sue someone else, they don’t bother. They might feel that they have gotten restitution through an outside channel. Or, they might think that the whole matter is a technicality. There is no such check when a government agent is doing the prosecuting. The agent doesn’t have to stop, and indeed might feel compelled to press on as part of their job description.

The second problem is that such courts use far-mode judgments. If a specific harmed person were there, the members of the court could make judgments about that specific person’s harms. Without such a person present, they have to weigh the harms done to an amorphous set of the general public.

Misrepresenting yourself as a war hero doesn’t seem to endanger anyone physically, or cause financial harm, but it does cause harm. This isn’t just an issue of insulting real soldiers’ service to the country, but lying about a government bestowed honor is like claiming all the people in the US think you are worthy and deserving of such. (The government represents the people after all). Real war heroes did a lot to earn their decoration, and it cheapens their award for someone undeserving to claim it also. As an American taxpayer, I expect the honors my government bestows on the behalf of its citizens to go to someone worthy and deserving. Copyright or trademark violation might hurt an individual, or even an entire corporation, so couldn’t it be argued thatlying about a government award insults and hurts the citizens represented by that government, even if it costs us nothing monetarily?

Even if you consider it as a lie, not an impersonation, it is still a lie affecting the honor of a nation of people. This is the kind of thing, if legislated, should be enforced by giving the offenders a great deal of community service, so they can know what it really means to serve.

But I see no point at all in making such a law in order to simply protect the public from a lying scumbag. It was no doubt enacted as an honorary gesture to service people.

I’m having trouble thinking of a lie that causes financial harm and is of a private nature. Maybe someone else can.

“I don’t have HIV.”

Anyway, if you buy a $10 pressure cooker and it explodes under normal use, causing you severe injury, you should be able to sue.