From the article:
I am really torn on this one (being careful to remember it could just as easily be two groups I happen to agree with).
One has to be really careful when political speech could be punished but at the same time I see nothing unreasonable about demanding that said speech be truthful.
Opinions?
Who is leading this gang of idiots? The headline practically writes itself: “REPUBLICANS FIGHT FOR RIGHT TO LIE!”
I don’t know how I feel about it - in theory things should be accurate, but often they get away with stuff. If it is literally true - is it ok?
One time I read (and saw the video) about a campaign ad. I went something like:
“In August 2004, Robert Politician used tax payer money to call a phone sex number from a hotel room in Arkansas. Is that the type of person we want as mayor for our city?”
They left out - the number he called was like 212-555-1243 while his office number was 212-555-1234. After immediately calling the obviously wrong number - he called the correct one a minute or two later.
This type of stuff is used all the time - I’m not sure what would be prevented by that law, and I think some of the burden is on the person listening to realize that people will distort facts and to look up anything they find out. I don’t have any real problem with a law requiring it be accurate, but does that actually help things?
The plaintifs said they avoided making statements due to a fear of getting fined as a result. It’s similar to the problem of “Libel Chill,” where people avoid saying something due to fear they’ll get sued. In this case, the threat of getting hauled into court and facing a fine, or even six months in jail, was having a chilling effect on political discourse.
I mean, how much trust would you have that the Official Ohio Truth Commision (or whoever would be making this judgement) isn’t going to be stocked with partisan jerks who are going to vote against you no matter what?
As a liberal, I support these conservative groups in trying to have this law overturned. This law could stop people making vague statements about candidates like “Bush lied, people died”, “Obama is a socialist”, or even “Katrina shows Bush does not care about black people.” This law would not necessarily stop groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn, or American Crossroads. It depends who was on the board that decides what is true. This law would not stop push polls or other misleading tactics. It is a stupid law.
Happy Fun Ball: Agreement, alas, An important part of Free Speech is ugly speech. The right to speak must include the right to lie. Conventional slander and libel laws cover the actionable exceptions (also truth in advertising laws regarding products, contracts, sales, and so on.)
Otherwise, who determines the truth? Would it be a politically appointed truth commission? You know, one that just happens to be dominated by one party…or the other?
Politicians fall under the “public figure” exception to defamation laws. I get to mention the time Glenn Beck raped and murdered a 17 year old girl, and he can’t do shit about it. Lies have been part and parcel of political speech since Og said Thog once bathed in the creek.
Allegedly raped and murdered. Not saying he did it, but I heard he did.
Well, he never denied it. We deserve the truth.
Just so it’s clear, today’s ruling does not invalidate the statute. The specific issue before the court was simply whether this group had standing to bring suit before the state had actually pursued an enforcement proceeding or imposed a fine. The court held that the chilling effect of the possibility of prosecution was enough of a basis for them to proceed.
There’s surely a difference between “Obama lied” and “G.W. Bush has sixteen illegitimate children.” There are political lies – “my opponent’s proposal will destroy our way of life” kind of thing – that are focused on the issues and should certainly be part of free debate, even if they are untrue. But there are personal statements (like the Swiftboat issue) that can skewer a campaign, even if there’s not a shred of evidence (or there’s contrary evidence.)
Especially in these days of instant global communication, a story on the day before the election about how a candidate “has been receiving bribes from China for spying on…” could be devastating, with no time to refute something totally untrue.
So, it sort of depends on how the law is written. I’m personally conflicted.
No discussion of this case is complete without a link to the Supreme Court amicus brief submitted by P.J. O’Rourke and the Cato Institute, arguing in favor of lying in politics. Its premise:
The whole brief – which has been called the best amicus brief ever – is worth a read.
You should not have the right to lie in politics. All of our laws and way of life is preserved by the representatives who craft laws, appoint judges, and enforce laws. I don’t care what liberty gets in the way, or problems it could cause for other aspects of life, one should never be allowed to lie in politics, ever.
Noble, but completely impractical.
Would you accept me as the new Commissioner of Truth, empowered to pass on the truthfulness of statements made in politics and assess penalties if they are lies?
…
Aren’t we missing something here though?
I thought we already distinguish commercial speech as different from “standard” speech. Certainly we have truth in advertising laws. Would anyone suggest those deny necessary free speech?
Of course there is leeway even in advertising and what you can say. For instance saying, “We have the best burger in the world,” is fine. So far I see little fuss or nitpick over deciding what exactly is true or not. Generally the offense needs to be overt before it gets notice.
Further, in Canada they have a law against the news broadcasting “false or misleading news”. In the US, till 1987, there was a “Fairness Doctrine” which had a similar role. While neither of these relate directly to advertising we can see a demand for truth in no way undermined or ruined democracy.
In this case we are talking about an advertisement. I see no reason it should not be held to a higher standard of truth than what a politician might say off-the-cuff. Ads are made by numerous people, the ad is written and re-written numerous times and money needs to be spent to get that ad in front of the public. Heck, the ad can be rejected for any reason by the broadcaster/printer. There is no “right” to have a given advertisement posted.
In short it gets a lot more scrutiny and a demand for truth does not seem unreasonable.
First off, a law against lying (in my mind, clearly) goes against the first amendment.
Second, it lends an air of authenticity to political speech that is entirely unwarranted and frankly dangerous.
Those fuckers do nothing but lie! Let’s not pretend otherwise, by passing a law and patting ourselves on the back, saying, “we fixed that problem”.
I’m not a fan of “truth in advertising laws” either. Since advertising is still 100% manipulation and falsehoods, but I hear people every day saying “They couldn’t say it if it wasn’t true. Truth in advertising, don’tcha know?” :smack:
No, but I would accept you being part of a bipartisan committee to decide on truths, and I would work out some way in which accepted facts are measured to some objective standard (yes yes, easier said than done) that the committee is
Basically, I’m tired of people claiming shit like “teaching kids about sex encourages more sex”. Fine and prosecute that shit, damn it, and I don’t care how its done or what the repercussions are. Its gotta be better than our current system
Even that is potentially troublesome, because sometimes the Democrats and Republicans are both wrong. Just look at the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates has been used to suppress third party candidates, for one example.
The Supreme Court of Canada struck down the “false news” offence 22 years ago, under the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression. See R. v. Zundel:
It was an archaic provision that dated back to the 19th century and had rarely been used.