# Do you think that TV ad over Iran is appropriate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 29, 2015, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455 "2015-07-29T06:47:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/21 "2015-07-29T21:00:14Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > For me, it always comes down to the question: who determines what “truth” is? > > What if Clinton airs an ad saying, “As Secretary of State, I ran a successful foreign policy,” and the Republicans sue, saying, “That’s not true.” What guarantee will there be that the “truth commissioners” are going to be nonpartisan? Four Republican appointees might overrule the three Democratic appointees and decree “This is an untrue claim; the ad is not allowed to be shown any longer.” I agree. The truth of a political ad should be determined by the voters, not a commission. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/22 "2015-07-29T21:23:28Z")
I think you could make a pretty good argument that the ad isn’t lying. Sure, Obama and Rouhani didn’t meet personally to settle this deal, but it is still a deal between their two respective governments. I think one could argue that it’s meant to be a figurative representation of the deal, and not intended as a statement of fact. I’m not saying that I support that interpretation, mind, just that it’s strong enough that, were I somehow on a jury required to determine the truthiness of the ad, it would constitute reasonable doubt for me. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/23 "2015-07-29T22:03:57Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > So if you and I are runnig for a seat on the town council of our rural small town, and I really want that seat and do not care how to get it, can I spread the “news” that you are a known pedophile? Maybe even “prove” it with a few photoshopped images? > > I am all for the freedom of opinion. No democracy can function without it. But you have to draw the line somewhere. An “all is fair” attitude is not helpful. Mind that not everyone is in as strong a position as President Obama when it comes to defending against unfair allegations like that. You do not want to create a situation where honest citizens shy away from running for political office for fear of having to suffer through smear campaigns like that. You think this kind of thing doesn’t happen? Does the word “swift-boating” strike a familiar note? The benefits of an open market of ideas is that the truth always still has the opportunity to win out. And if I can trace a slanderous or libelous lie back to you, then I can sue. If I can prove to the public’s satisfaction that you are behind that kind of lie, it will rebound against you. “You have to draw the line somewhere” - who decides where the line is drawn? I think our courts have done a damned good job so far, without stepping on the essential freedom of expression. Freedom of opinion is, in my opinion, a meaningless phrase. If my opinions are in my head, it’s pretty hard for anyone to do anything about them. I have to be able to share my opinions, my beliefs, and the information that I have, even when some of that (or all of it) is wrong. Otherwise what you have isn’t freedom, it’s regulated speech. And yes, unpopular speech always makes some people feel that we have too much freedom of speech. That’s when we have to be most vigilant. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/24 "2015-07-29T23:19:18Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > So if you and I are runnig for a seat on the town council of our rural small town, and I really want that seat and do not care how to get it, can I spread the “news” that you are a known pedophile? Maybe even “prove” it with a few photoshopped images? > [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > You think this kind of thing doesn’t happen? Does the word “swift-boating” strike a familiar note? This would go way beyond “Swiftboating”. If a candidate placed adds say his opponent was a pedophile and included photoshopped images, I expect the opponent could win a libel suit if he decide to sue. Claiming your opponent is a coward and liar is not at all the same as claiming your opponent is a actual criminal, and a felon to boot. ---
**Author:** ![SpoilerVirgin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@SpoilerVirgin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpoilerVirgin)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/25 "2015-07-29T23:39:59Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > Does the word “swift-boating” strike a familiar note? Very familiar. > [@](#): > > In a press release, Restoration PAC said that that ad was produced by “award-winning ad-maker Rick Reed, who specializes in national security issues and whose Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad campaign was pivotal in re-electing George W. Bush President in 2004.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/26 "2015-07-30T01:19:51Z")
I wonder if the image has popped up in Iran yet. You know, the intertubes and stuff. Like, if they believed it and were happily spreading it around. Might have more real effect in Iran than here. Might promote the cause of peace or maybe just show how popular a notion that is in Iran. So, the producers and distributors of this would be a force for peace in the world. That’s what their money did. Biting irony and good karma. Love it when that happens. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/27 "2015-07-30T01:27:40Z")
Dumb-asses should have had Obama shaking hands with Khamenei. He’s the real power in Iran, and has a much scarier beard and eyebrows!! ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/28 "2015-07-30T11:33:03Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > “The US” and “America” did not produce that commercial. It was produced by a relatively small organization that is participating in the American political process. > > Perhaps, in some eyes, the commercial’s inaccuracies and lies do reflect badly on the country as a whole. I would disagree with that assessment. Would you expect that the government would prevent such an ad from running? In our country, political speech is given pretty wide latitude before it is censored. We expect individual people to be bright enough to figure out who is telling the truth and who is trying to manipulate them. > > No, it’s not. As many great people have said before now, having free speech means that sometimes you have to hear things you don’t like, even things that are objectively wrong. Freedom of expression is not only an American value, it is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It’s too bad all countries don’t have the same right of free expression that the US has. Singapore is not the standard bearer for freedom of expression (or other human rights) that I would want to follow. > > (End of sixth grade Civics lesson.) Um, you just defended fraud. Political speech in the USA has gotten a bit out of hand, and not all viewers and voters are _really_ above average. There does need to be some remedy for political lies, and right now, it’s not clear there is. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/29 "2015-07-30T11:44:06Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > I agree. The truth of a political ad should be determined by the voters, not a commission. Then it\* will \*be determined by the likes of Donald Trump and Sheldon Adelson. Enough of the voters’ opinions are steered by the media to _determine_ elections; and the media say what they are paid to say. Absent, I don’t know, independent state-funded media (and even that is no guarantee of undue influence), all you’re _really_ offering is plutocracy. Using an objective standard of truth, where possible, to shut down political lies, is at least \*some \*constraint. First Amendment absolutism, by design, offers none–and that is of course intentional, both on the part of the financially interested propagandists who got the Bill of Rights passed and on the more recent absolutist movement that have used it to strike down the very sorts of laws against libel, slander, and–yes!–fraud that some here are still pretending will protect public discourse. Absolute freedom of speech to be protected even as it demonstrably lies is a plutocratic ideal–the freedom of the press with the greatest distribution to override all else, even truth. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/30 "2015-07-30T11:48:41Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > And yes, unpopular speech always makes some people feel that we have too much freedom of speech. That’s when we have to be most vigilant. To protect _fraud._ :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/31 "2015-07-30T12:05:57Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > “You have to draw the line somewhere” - who decides where the line is drawn? I think our courts have done a damned good job so far, without stepping on the essential freedom of expression. You are answering your own question: Usually it is the law that draws the line, and consquently the courts that apply it. > [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > Freedom of opinion is, in my opinion, a meaningless phrase. If my opinions are in my head, it’s pretty hard for anyone to do anything about them. I have to be able to share my opinions, my beliefs, and the information that I have, even when some of that (or all of it) is wrong. Otherwise what you have isn’t freedom, it’s regulated speech. I am not sure if I get your meaning right - so please correct me if I do not. Does “free speech” mean to you that everyone should always be able to say anything they want without repercussions? And a nation where that is not possible somehow downgrades itself from free speech to “regulated speech”? If that is what you meant to say, we disagree. And I do not believe that there is a country in the world today that protects that version of free speech. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/32 "2015-07-30T14:11:13Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Using an objective standard of truth, where possible, to shut down political lies, is at least \*some \*constraint. The State of Ohio already tried such a scheme, and the law was struck down by a Federal judge as unconstitutional. > [@Judge Timothy Black](#): > > We do not want the government (i.e., the Ohio Elections Commission) deciding what is political truth — for fear that the government might persecute those who criticize it. Instead, in a democracy, the voters should decide. [http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/09/judge-strikes-down-ohio-law-on-election-lies-195333.html](http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/09/judge-strikes-down-ohio-law-on-election-lies-195333.html) Are you suggesting that we amend the Constitution? ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/33 "2015-07-30T15:24:30Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > For me, it always comes down to the question: who determines what “truth” is? > > What if Clinton airs an ad saying, “As Secretary of State, I ran a successful foreign policy,” and the Republicans sue, saying, “That’s not true.” What guarantee will there be that the “truth commissioners” are going to be nonpartisan? Four Republican appointees might overrule the three Democratic appointees and decree “This is an untrue claim; the ad is not allowed to be shown any longer.” First of all - why. should a political committee be involved in objectively determining fact? Secondly - “I ran a successful foreign policy” is quite obviously opinion. It’s subject to interpretation. As such, you can’t get an objective determination of fact. On the other hand, doctoring a photo to have Obama shaking hands with someone he has never met is an objective lie ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/34 "2015-07-30T20:13:34Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Um, you just defended fraud. Well, yes and no. In its loose, non-technical usage, “fraud” just means lies, and so, yes, we’re defending the right of people to lie when uttering political opinions. In its tight, technical usage, “fraud” means to take money from people by false speech – deceptive contract writing, or simply promising goods and not delivering them. No one here is defending criminal fraud. > [@](#): > > Political speech in the USA has gotten a bit out of hand, and not all viewers and voters are _really_ above average. There does need to be some remedy for political lies, and right now, it’s not clear there is. The only answer is speaking right back. Taking out a competing ad that points out the lies in the original ad. Compelling someone else not to speak is an “answer” that’s a lot worse than the ailment in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/35 "2015-07-30T20:19:07Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > First of all - why. should a political committee be involved in objectively determining fact? That’s a necessary implication of a “law against lying.” Someone has to determine whether or not a given statement is a lie. > [@](#): > > Secondly - “I ran a successful foreign policy” is quite obviously opinion. It’s subject to interpretation. As such, you can’t get an objective determination of fact. A law against lying would not be able to be limited to that kind of interpretation. Some political activist would file the lawsuit, and a biased commission might easily rule that the claim is “fact-based” and “untrue.” No political advertising would be safe any longer. > [@](#): > > On the other hand, doctoring a photo to have Obama shaking hands with someone he has never met is an objective lie Agreed. So what? I believe we have to tolerate that kind of garbage, because there are bad people who would use the power to outlaw “lies” to outlaw any speech they disagreed with. (Take a look at Jerry Fallwell vs. Hustler magazine. One of the most arrant and ugly lies anyone ever printed in the history of the medium…totally legal. And that’s the way I believe it should be, because the alternative is worse.) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/36 "2015-07-30T21:46:45Z")
The Falwell _Hustler_ piece was parody. I am not seeing how this photoshop job is parody. It appears to be presented seriously. The court’s reasoning in _Hustler v. Falwell_ was that nobody would take the Falwell piece seriously. I actually kind of hope Obama _does_ sue over this ad. I would say the same if a left-leaning PAC photoshopped an image of Rand Paul hugging Tim McVey or something. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/37 "2015-07-30T21:48:12Z")
It’s almost impossible for prominent public figures – and who is more prominent than the President! – to sue for defamation. If that could happen, it would have happened long ago, over the “birther” libel. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/38 "2015-07-30T23:03:35Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The Falwell _Hustler_ piece was parody. I am not seeing how this photoshop job is parody. It appears to be presented seriously. The court’s reasoning in _Hustler v. Falwell_ was that nobody would take the Falwell piece seriously. I actually kind of hope Obama _does_ sue over this ad. I would say the same if a left-leaning PAC photoshopped an image of Rand Paul hugging Tim McVey or something. McVeigh. And wouldn’t Obama have to show some sort of damages for the suit to succeed? Obama did sign a treaty with Iran - all that this ad is lying about is whether that deal involved Obama personally shaking hands with Rouhani. Even assuming Obama could demonstrate that he was directly harmed by this ad, it seems that a reasonable defense would be to claim that the harm comes from people upset about the deal, and not about the alleged handshake. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/39 "2015-07-30T23:11:41Z")
What about investors afflicted by this peace scare? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455/40 "2015-07-31T00:20:01Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > That’s a necessary implication of a “law against lying.” Someone has to determine whether or not a given statement is a lie. Yes, by using facts, which do not change depending on who speaks them or who judges them. In this instance, it is a fact that this image is fake. > [@](#): > > A law against lying would not be able to be limited to that kind of interpretation. Some political activist would file the lawsuit, and a biased commission might easily rule that the claim is “fact-based” and “untrue.” No political advertising would be safe any longer. This is absolute bullshit. Statements of fact verses opinion is one of those distinctions they teach you in grade school. If we can distinguish them, then so can the law. And we already have a truth in advertizing law which proves that it can be done on a broad level. Fact and opinion are fairly easy to distinguish most of the time, and when there is any gray area, you can always err on the side of opinions. Or, you can go to court, like happened in the case you later cite. > [@](#): > > Agreed. So what? I believe we have to tolerate that kind of garbage, because there are bad people who would use the power to outlaw “lies” to outlaw any speech they disagreed with. > > (Take a look at Jerry Fallwell vs. Hustler magazine. One of the most arrant and ugly lies anyone ever printed in the history of the medium…totally legal. And that’s the way I believe it should be, because the alternative is worse.) There are alternatives, but you are ignoring facts and creating a slippery slope in order to make it where there are not any. You ignore the fact that we can determine the difference between statements of fact and statements of opinion. You ignore that we can determine the truth or falsity of statements of fact. You even quote a libel case where the exact distinction you claim is impossible was actually made by the Supreme Court. Because it was parody, and not presented as fact, it was not libel. Your citation is actually proof that this sort of thing actually is workable. * * * As for the topic of this thread, I think altered photos should be liable for libel if they are presented as having really happened. Fortunately, this is already the case in U.S. law. There is no restriction of libel to the written word. Whether that applies here is more hairy, as it’s unclear if the photo is being presented as factual. I can see arguments both ways. So I understand the OP wanting to make this sort of thing more clear. I would personally (i.e. my opinion) find that, if they can successfully argue that no one would think the image was presenting factual information, they could easily add a small disclaimer and it not cause any problems. So I see nothing wrong with mandating that sort of thing, and the existence of such requirements for other types of ads shows this is not Constitutionally impossible. * * * The idea that we can’t determine what is and is not factual is ridiculous. We already have a court system that specifically exists to do this. And this is not a debatable case. The image definitely is fake. We know it is not factual. The only question is whether it was presented as factual. Edit: Well, and whether it is defamatory, but I think it is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-that-tv-ad-over-iran-is-appropriate/726455.md?page=3)