# Should “Attack Ads” Be Permitted? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 3, 2022, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313 "2022-11-03T23:35:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Dr\_Paprika](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr_paprika/32/3042_2.png) [@Dr\_Paprika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr_Paprika)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2022, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/1 "2022-11-03T23:35:18Z")
Trevor Noah makes a fair point about attack ads. Obviously, dirty tricks have long been a factor in politics. Balancing freedom of speech with attacks going too far may be difficult. **But in theory, should they be allowed? Do they influence you? Is this clever politics, or does it turn people off or drive dark emotions?** Noah says (from his show via The Guardian): Trevor Noah continued his week of live shows in Atlanta on Wednesday evening, and noted the number of campaign ads he had seen and heard during his time in Georgia. “If you only knew Stacey Abrams from attack ads in Georgia, you would think she was Darth Vader combined with Thanos combined with that asshole who cut you off in the traffic. Pure evil,” he joked…. Attack ads are not exclusive to Georgia, a highly competitive swing state in the midterm elections next week, and “it’s not just mean in this moment”, the Daily Show host said. “It’s getting meaner, every single day. Every campaign in America right now is flooding the airwaves with attack ads.” Noah argued that attack ads should be illegal – not campaign ads, just attack ads, because “they drive polarization and hate. And secondly, politicians should be earning your vote by telling you what they’re going to do, not just shitting on other candidates… “We don’t accept this shit in any other job,” he continued. “There’s no other job where you can apply for it and then your résumé isn’t what you do, it’s just a list of all the reasons why the other people suck.” ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2022, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/2 "2022-11-04T00:48:29Z")
> [@Dr\_Paprika](#): > > Noah argued that attack ads should be illegal – not campaign ads, just attack ads, because “they drive polarization and hate. Not sure how you’d manage that with that pesky First Amendment in the way. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2022, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/3 "2022-11-04T01:22:07Z")
That, plus what do you use for a legal definition of an “attack ad”? ---
**Author:** ![dougrb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/76d3ee/32.png) [@dougrb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougrb)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2022, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/4 "2022-11-04T01:35:52Z")
“I know it when I see it” ---
**Author:** ![dolphinboy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dolphinboy/32/330_2.png) [@dolphinboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dolphinboy)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2022, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/5 "2022-11-04T01:42:06Z")
Well, you could base it on the accuracy of the ad. If there’s a provable lie, that should disqualify it. Isn’t there something about truth in advertising? Advertisers can’t blatantly lie about their product, why should politicians be allowed to? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2022, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/6 "2022-11-04T01:46:30Z")
If the attack ad is _factually correct_, I’d be uncomfortable with the idea of banning it. That being said, attack ads almost always make me want to vote against the side doing the attacking. ---
**Author:** ![Dr\_Paprika](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr_paprika/32/3042_2.png) [@Dr\_Paprika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr_Paprika)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2022, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/7 "2022-11-04T01:53:05Z")
Comedian Brian Regan brings up the real life example of someone who said an American candidate _was in favour of tasing seven year olds_. This was true in the very limited sense that in the unlikely event a child acquired a weapon, one would not want to hurt the child, and in the worst case scenario such an action might reasonably be the best one. Attack ads are a thing in Canada but are usually milder and not nearly to the extent they are in some countries. More often than not, they backfire and turn people off. Even mild ones (Chretien’s accent, Trudeau’s hair) can make people wonder why they are not addressing ideas of more substance. However, now the thing for all parties seems to be avoiding giving any platform details until unavoidable. An unwelcome trend.) ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2022, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/8 "2022-11-04T01:56:10Z")
> [@dolphinboy](#): > > Well, you could base it on the accuracy of the ad. If there’s a provable lie, that should disqualify it. Isn’t there something about truth in advertising? I’m not sure I like the idea of the government deciding what’s “true”. Especially considering that we recently had a president who was fond of declaring any unflattering talk about him of being “fake”. ---
**Author:** ![dolphinboy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dolphinboy/32/330_2.png) [@dolphinboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dolphinboy)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2022, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/9 "2022-11-04T03:40:31Z")
I wasn’t thinking about the government per se, more like judges who would be presented with evidence that an ad is false and deem it either false or true. It would be a nightmare to administer something like this in the US, but it’s theoretically possible. Are there countries that have a proven way to weed out attack speech that is provably false or misleading? ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2022, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/10 "2022-11-04T03:42:12Z")
> [@dolphinboy](#): > > I wasn’t thinking about the government per se, more like judges who would be presented with evidence that an ad is false and deem it either false or true. So the 5th Circuit, Sam Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett. ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2022, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/11 "2022-11-04T03:44:23Z")
> [@dolphinboy](#): > > I wasn’t thinking about the government per se, more like judges who would be presented with evidence that an ad is false and deem it either false or true Oh, no “non-government judges”. Along with “non-government police officers” and “non-government bureaucrats.” Maybe a nice “non-government military.” ---
**Author:** ![dolphinboy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dolphinboy/32/330_2.png) [@dolphinboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dolphinboy)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2022, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/12 "2022-11-04T03:46:35Z")
I doubt the Supreme Court would be interested in deciding whether a particular political ad was truthful. How are regular TV ads removed if they intentionally lie about their products? I think the FCC has a hand in it. The bottom line is there should be consequences for lying in an advertisement. How that could ever be enforced is beyond me. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2022, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/13 "2022-11-04T03:48:25Z")
> [@dolphinboy](#): > > I think the FCC has a hand in it. So Ajit Pai, then. Are you beginning to understand the folly of putting political appointees in charge of deciding what candidates are allowed to say? ---
**Author:** ![dolphinboy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dolphinboy/32/330_2.png) [@dolphinboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dolphinboy)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2022, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/14 "2022-11-04T03:49:15Z")
Then what is your solution? Let everyone lie as much as they want, and just let the buyer beware? Is that how it works in other countries? ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2022, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/15 "2022-11-04T03:50:38Z")
> [@dolphinboy](#): > > Then what is your solution? A strong and independent free press to report on what’s fact and what’s fiction. ---
**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:** [November 4, 2022, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/16 "2022-11-04T03:50:59Z")
Because political speech is protected by the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![dolphinboy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dolphinboy/32/330_2.png) [@dolphinboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dolphinboy)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2022, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/17 "2022-11-04T03:51:40Z")
Even if it’s provably false. No matter what. Even if it’s hate speech. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2022, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/18 "2022-11-04T03:52:31Z")
Distasteful speech is still free speech. ---
**Author:** ![dolphinboy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dolphinboy/32/330_2.png) [@dolphinboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dolphinboy)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2022, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/19 "2022-11-04T03:53:23Z")
You have to draw the line somewhere. Seditious speech is still illegal AFAIK. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. Speech can be regulated. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2022, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313/20 "2022-11-04T03:59:29Z")
> [@dolphinboy](#): > > Seditious speech is still illegal AFAIK. “The Brandenburg v. Ohio U.S. Supreme Court decision maintains that seditious speech—including speech that constitutes an incitement to violence—is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as long as it does not reach a level “where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”” [Seditious libel - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_libel#:~:text=Seditious%20speech%20is%20speech%20directed,the%20Alien%20and%20Sedition%20Act). > [@dolphinboy](#): > > You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater “The phrase is a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant’s speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).[1]” > **[Shouting fire in a crowded theater](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater)** > > "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular analogy for speech or actions whose principal purpose is to create panic, and in particular for speech or actions which may for that reason be thought to be outside the scope of free speech protections. The phrase is a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to ... [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-attack-ads-be-permitted/974313.md?page=2)