I’m discussing a politically biased regulatory board that doesn’t care to distinguish them, but which uses the power to censor for its own partisan purposes.
Look at recent behavior by the FCC to see what might happen. The “non-partisan” commission has highly partisan members.
ETA:
If every advertisement has to go through a trial before being allowed to be published, no publication can ever be secure. Do you trust juries always to make the proper decision?
So what? Was there some statement in the ad that said the image was unaltered? Images are altered all the time. If a candidate has a scar on his face, and that scar gets photoshopped out, is that going to be a crime? The idea that a picture must be unaltered to be acceptable is laughable, especially in this day and age. Where are you even getting this idea from in the first place?
Can you cite some similar situation where the person* in the photo won a libel case in court?
*And the person being a prominent politician.
In addition, there has to be proof of actual damages.
Well we already know how Iran’s leader feels about Obama. Not sure why they didn’t use this image instead. Doesn’t need a lot of commentary.
I’m not in favor of policing political ads, but this statement is pretty ridiculous. It makes it out like a court would be unable to distinguish a factual assertion from an opinion under any circumstances. If that were true, then I would think we’d see wanton abuse of perjury charges. “Oh, you think the defendant didn’t do it, huh? Well, you’re under arrest for perjury!”
I guess we can kiss Weekend Update on SNL good-bye. Doctoring photographs is a mainstay for that program.
If you’re not in favor, why are you arguing in favor?
If advertisements had to be factual, then courts would have to try every ad. They would have to hold a trial to determine whether the ad was factual. All the opponent has to do is lodge the lawsuit claiming untruth. Either a “commision” or a judge-and-jury would be required to render judgement on every single political ad, every time, always.
Perjury is hard to prove. But so is “truth.” A law requiring ads to be “true” would require some procedure to prove them true.
It’s a bad idea.
There is an obvious difference between SNL and a campaign ad.
Yeah. One is funny and the other isn’t.
Not all campaign ads are funny, you know.
Haven’t seen SNL in quite a long time, did it become funny?
No. 
I feel like they’re in a transition period with the recent leaving of their talent. I do think Kate McKinon is hilarious and does great impressions, and Leslie Jones is a refreshing perspective from some of the waiflike “average” woman stereotypes that populate the background of many skits. Taran Killam is great but doesn’t have as much memorable characters yet, and I really miss Bill Hader and Jason Sudekis.
And the OCD owl says “Who?” about nine times in rapid succession.
I’m going way out on a limb here, but I’m guessing they’re all performers on Saturday Night Live.
Back in your day it was better, like Araros son of Aristophones and Hegelochus?