What is the major difference between the majority and dissenting opinions on false speech and the Stolen Valor Act?

I believe the answer is: Stolen Valor had a punishment if a person lie, but in false speech the person is protected by the first amendment the freedom of speech

The 'lies' that covered by stolen valor are the ones that being done to illegally obtain money, properties or other forms of tangible benefits from other people. False speech on the other hand, tend to be political or ideological in nature and being done as a form of persuasion.

The majority writes that false speech is protected as long as it does not cause harm. The writer worries that the Stolen Valor Act would set a dangerous precedent for future laws. The dissent believes that false speech is rarely protected by the First Amendment, and the Act is constitutional.