Yes, even if it’s provably false. President Biden recently said that gas was over $5.00 when he took office. It was actually $2.39. Should he be held legally accountable for making a provably false statement at a political event?
Of course not, since all speech is allowed unless it incites sedition or creates panic, and lying about the price of gas does neither. So anyone can say anything without worrying about consequences, unless that strong and free press catches them!
If that’s the case, why should “attack ads” be banned?
Attack ads can’t and never will be banned. I was making a straw argument to see if anyone would take the bait.
Moderating:
If you’re going to troll the board even to make a point, it’s a good idea to not admit it in a post. Intentional straw man arguments are not permitted, and trolling certainly is never allowed.
Knock it off. Will be a warning next time.
Curse you for making me agree with D_Anconia, you dastard.
The same sort of issues arise in allowing the government to decide that, no, you don’t get to market “100% LEAN BEEF brand desiccated corn husks”, and yet we have a system of advertising regulation.
Which allows for “puffery”, factually untrue statements which advertisers are allowed to use.
It’s not as clear-cut as you might think it is.
I’d like to think that people are intelligent enough to realize that, if all an individual can do is attack and besmirch his opponent and distort/misrepresent facts, then he has nothing worthwhile to offer of his own. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Don’t sell your politicians short.
What if your opponent is so singularly awful that the primary distinctions between them and you is that they’re awful, and you’re normal? Like, say, Biden vs. Trump? How do you campaign without pointing out how awful they are?
Even the craziest attack ads I’ve seen are misrepresentations, not lies.
My all-time favorite was one that ran about a local politician in 2020. I guess the opposition research team ran a public records search and linked a drug arrest to one one the many rental properties owned by Candidate X.
They built an ad campaign around it……Joe Dealer sold drugs and Candidate X got the money. Really, all that proved was that the drug dealer paid his rent, but it was quite dramatic and technically true.
Political TV ads of all kinds are bad. The length and medium only allows for tabloid plays on emotion. I doubt there’s a way to get rid of them in the US though. First amendment, the amount of money in politics and ad providers enjoying that money more than their souls all conspire to make that true. Also even I can’t yet bring myself to pay to avoid ads on youtube, even though political ads push me quite close.
It’s not like they need my help to do so.
Of course so-called ‘attack ads’ should be permitted. It’s interesting this phenomenon of creating a label for some form of speech that one opposes and thinking that that label is somehow powerful enough to overcome one’s right to free speech.
The problem with that is, courts often don’t move fast enough. If I were to put out an ad today saying that a candidate for election this coming Tuesday is a Lying Shizno, what does it matter if some judge says that’s a lie next Wednesday?
Illinois has an amendment on the ballot, making unions constitutionally protected, as would be ‘closed’ workplaces (i.e. it’s a union shop, and you HAVE to join the union if you want to work there).
The People Who Play By the Rules PAC (the same ones bolstering Darren Bailey and putting out faked newspapers) are running adds saying that Amendment 1 would raise your property taxes by $2100!
I was able to track down how they got to that. Here’s their logic:
- If it passes, Illinois could not lower property taxes. (Not sure how they got that - there’s nothing in there about taxes at all; maybe it’s “the state will owe too much to the government unions, so they couldn’t lower taxes”)
- Over the next 4 years, the worth of your house will go up. (I’m not sure if this was based on overall real estate inflation, expected increase in sales price of properties sold, or increase in cost of new home sales; also not sure what inflationary numbers they were using)
- Your tax bill over the next 4 years will be greater than your current tax bill by a combined $2,100
No matter what, that’s a pretty far stretch. But, is there enough “truth” there so that it isn’t a lie?
Same people are SCREAMING that come January 1, the Illinois jails will be emptied because of the removal of cash bail.
Nope. You already in jail because you can’t post bail? You stay in jail until you can post bail. New case? Judge can say “you’re a threat; remanded to custody.” Judge can also say “you’re not a threat; come back for your trial date.”
Ain’t no way that’s a “misrepresentation” - it’s a straight out lie.
The phrase “attack ad” is not some new label meant to stifle free speech. It’s a clearly understood label that’s been around quite some time to indicate ads that attack the opponent rather than prop up the candidate. What would you call them?
Read point #3 from this non-partisan website about the taxes:
8 reasons Illinois voters should reject Amendment 1 (illinoispolicy.org)
As for the cash bail, even J.B. acknowledges that changes to the law need to be made, even though it hasn’t even gone into effect.
Bolding mine:
The Illinois Policy Institute (IPI) is a libertarian nonprofit think tank
The group worked closely with former Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, a Republican and past donor to IPI,[11] during the first several years of his gubernatorial tenure.
IPI formerly operated the Illinois News Network, transferring ownership of that entity to the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity in January 2018. IPI has received financial support from charitable foundations associated with the Koch, Mercer, Uihlein, and Rauner families.[10]
John Tillman is a conservative activist who runs the Illinois Policy Institute (IPI), a libertarian think tank, and the American Culture Project, which seeks to advance Republican Party interests.