Question

understanding the majority opinion
laws that prevent harmful false speech center on lies told about others. a lie that is told about another person can be difficult to reverse. it can permanently damage that persons reputation and well - being. however, a lie told about oneself and ones own accomplishments is easier to reverse through other speech. indeed, in mr. fieldss case, an effective way to reverse mr. fieldss falsehoods is to simply point out his lie. the first amendment empowers the public to use its own free speech in response to mr. fields. a law is unnecessary.
why does the justice object to the enforcement of the stolen valor act?
laws must not prevent false speech about others.
laws making it a crime to tell lies about oneself are not needed.
it is not possible to reverse a lie through other speech.
lies told about others are less serious than lies told about oneself.

Explanation:

The text argues that lies about oneself can be reversed through other speech (unlike lies about others which can permanently damage reputation). So, a law (Stolen Valor Act which likely criminalizes lying about oneself - in this context) is unnecessary as the First Amendment allows public response (other speech) to counter such lies.

Answer:

Laws making it a crime to tell lies about oneself are not needed.