I agree. The truth of a political ad should be determined by the voters, not a commission.
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.
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.
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.
Very familiar.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
To protect fraud. :rolleyes:
You are answering your own question: Usually it is the law that draws the line, and consquently the courts that apply it.
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.
The State of Ohio already tried such a scheme, and the law was struck down by a Federal judge as unconstitutional.
Are you suggesting that we amend the Constitution?
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
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.
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.
That’s a necessary implication of a “law against lying.” Someone has to determine whether or not a given statement is a lie.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
What about investors afflicted by this peace scare?
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.
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.
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.