# U.S. justices revive challenge to Ohio election law on false statements **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 16, 2014, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-justices-revive-challenge-to-ohio-election-law-on-false-statements/690914 "2014-06-16T16:40:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-justices-revive-challenge-to-ohio-election-law-on-false-statements/690914/21 "2014-06-19T03:38:08Z")
> [@Billdo](#): > > No discussion of this case is complete without a [link](http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/sba-list-merits-filed-brief.pdf) to the Supreme Court _amicus_ brief submitted by P.J. O’Rourke and the Cato Institute, arguing in favor of lying in politics. > > … > > The whole brief – which has been called the best amicus brief ever – is worth a read. Previous thread on topic: > **[PJ O'Rourke files amicus brief in SCOTUS; defends "truthiness" as protected...](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=720169)** > > PJ O’Rourke and the Cato Institute have filed an amicus brief in a SCOTUS case involving an Ohio statute that appears to try to require that statements made by and about politicians during an election campaign be true: SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST,... ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-justices-revive-challenge-to-ohio-election-law-on-false-statements/690914/22 "2014-06-19T05:15:47Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > 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. I’m fine with trying to make it work, not saying it will never work and not trying. Whatever we get is better than the system we have now ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-justices-revive-challenge-to-ohio-election-law-on-false-statements/690914/23 "2014-06-19T13:36:28Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > \ 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: Exactly! Well reasoned. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-justices-revive-challenge-to-ohio-election-law-on-false-statements/690914/24 "2014-06-19T14:09:54Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > 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_: > > [R. v. Zundel - SCC Cases](http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/904/index.do) > > It was an archaic provision that dated back to the 19th century and had rarely been used. That’s weird considering there was a fuss over it just a few years ago in Canada and would seem it is still in effect: > [@](#): > > With little fanfare, the CRTC [Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission] last month [April, 2011] scrapped a proposal to revoke or relax a rule on “prohibited programming content” that includes “broadcasting false or misleading news.” The CRTC withdrew the plan when a legislative committee determined that the rule does not run afoul of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which like the U.S. Constitution, guarantees press freedoms. > > The Canadian media speculated that the withdrawal may have been provoked in no small part by the large sector of the public that voiced its displeasure at the idea of Sun TV coarsening the public discourse and deliberately muddying the political waters, akin to what they see in American media. > > SOURCE: [http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/a-law-against-lying-on-the-news](http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/a-law-against-lying-on-the-news) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-justices-revive-challenge-to-ohio-election-law-on-false-statements/690914.md?page=1)