Court to weigh challenge to ban on campaign lies

[nodoginnafight]

The law amounts to prior restraint, which makes it unconstitutional.

I don't see the prior restraint argument. No one is running out to clamp their hand over the candidate's mouth BEFORE he says something ????????????????????????????

You don't see prior restraint? From the link in the OP.

The case began during the 2010 election, when the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group, planned to launch a billboard campaign accusing then-Democratic Rep. Steven Driehaus of supporting taxpayer-funded abortion because he backed President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
Driehaus urged the Ohio Elections Commission to block the ads, arguing that the proposed billboard was false under Ohio law. Given the threat of legal action, the billboard owner declined to run the ad.

Read the fucking links you brain dead moron.

You are right - in that case a prior restraint was requested.

I apologize.

 

[HenryBHough]

HOW does "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" have any meaning when you no longer HAVE a constitution?

 

[nodoginnafight]

HOW does "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" have any meaning when you no longer HAVE a constitution?

Where did it go?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why should politicians be able to raise money lying with no fear of repercussions? Why shouldn't they be held to the same standards as the rest of us when it comes to fraud? The current resident of the oval office raised hundreds of millions with known lies but nothing will happen to him. I would love to see him prosecuted under the laws of these 16 states that have them, that would put a stop to that crap.

I guess you missed the part where the law doesn't apply to politicians, just to everyone who talks about them.

According to the article 16 states have laws that say otherwise. This is a OH case they didn't give a list of the others.

I am talking about the specific law you posted about. If you want me to point out what is wrong with another law, feel free to post it.

The Ohio law makes it illegal to knowingly or recklessly make false statements about a candidate during an election.

See there, not a damn thing about the politician actually lying to everyone in sight, but if you say something bad about him your ass is going to jail. It takes a special kind of idiot to think this is a good idea, you aren't that kind of idiot.

 

[HenryBHough]

HOW does "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" have any meaning when you no longer HAVE a constitution?

Where did it go?

Shredded for its hemp content and smoked in a single evening in January, 2009.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't see the prior restraint argument. No one is running out to clamp their hand over the candidate's mouth BEFORE he says something ????????????????????????????

You don't see prior restraint? From the link in the OP.

The case began during the 2010 election, when the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group, planned to launch a billboard campaign accusing then-Democratic Rep. Steven Driehaus of supporting taxpayer-funded abortion because he backed President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
Driehaus urged the Ohio Elections Commission to block the ads, arguing that the proposed billboard was false under Ohio law. Given the threat of legal action, the billboard owner declined to run the ad.

Read the fucking links you brain dead moron.

You are right - in that case a prior restraint was requested.

I apologize.

Anyone can be wrong, knowing that is half the fight. The other half is admitting it when you are.

 

[OKTexas]

I guess you missed the part where the law doesn't apply to politicians, just to everyone who talks about them.

According to the article 16 states have laws that say otherwise. This is a OH case they didn't give a list of the others.

I am talking about the specific law you posted about. If you want me to point out what is wrong with another law, feel free to post it.

The Ohio law makes it illegal to knowingly or recklessly make false statements about a candidate during an election.

See there, not a damn thing about the politician actually lying to everyone in sight, but if you say something bad about him your ass is going to jail. It takes a special kind of idiot to think this is a good idea, you aren't that kind of idiot.

So you're saying a politician giving a speech that talks about his opponent would be exempt? And you're wrong, I think politicians that think truth and honesty are elastic and can be stretched and distorted to fit the situation should be prosecuted, the same goes for groups that get involved in politics. How can we tell our children that the truth matters when we allow our supposed leaders to lie their asses off?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I don't see the prior restraint argument. No one is running out to clamp their hand over the candidate's mouth BEFORE he says something ????????????????????????????

You don't see prior restraint? From the link in the OP.

The case began during the 2010 election, when the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group, planned to launch a billboard campaign accusing then-Democratic Rep. Steven Driehaus of supporting taxpayer-funded abortion because he backed President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
Driehaus urged the Ohio Elections Commission to block the ads, arguing that the proposed billboard was false under Ohio law. Given the threat of legal action, the billboard owner declined to run the ad.

Read the fucking links you brain dead moron.

You are right - in that case a prior restraint was requested.

I apologize.

actually - I'm not sure IF a prior restraint happened here. Did the government prohibit the speech in advance of publication (a prior restraint) or did the billboard company pull the ad voluntarily (not a prior restraint)?

Does anyone know?

The election commission was "urged" to block publication, so a prior restraint was requested. But did a prior restraint actually take place? Does the law provide for that?

 

[BlindBoo]

There are examples that are clear and objective, like you dear leader continuing to claim after knowing it was untrue, that if you like your doctor you can keep him.......

Like I said earlier he raised hundreds of millions on those lies, should he really be held above the law?

Ahh, campaign pledges and promises. Is there going to be a statue of limitations on this? How far back can we go? If their lies caused deaths can we charge them criminally? How about talking points or leaking false stories to the press, hell, how about writing false story and giving that to the press to publish..........

Now you are going to the absurd, A campaign pledge is a statement of intent and is not represented as fact.

It's not absurd, it's subjective. Let's go back just one administration and prosecute every lie from the Bush Administration then.

Are you saying President Obama wasn't campaigning and making promises to get the law passed when he said that?

 

[nodoginnafight]

HOW does "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" have any meaning when you no longer HAVE a constitution?

Where did it go?

Shredded for its hemp content and smoked in a single evening in January, 2009.

Dang - and I wasn't invited?

 

[OKTexas]

You don't see prior restraint? From the link in the OP.




Read the fucking links you brain dead moron.

You are right - in that case a prior restraint was requested.

I apologize.

actually - I'm not sure IF a prior restraint happened here. Did the government prohibit the speech in advance of publication (a prior restraint) or did the billboard company pull the ad voluntarily (not a prior restraint)?

Does anyone know?

The election commission was "urged" to block publication, so a prior restraint was requested. But did a prior restraint actually take place? Does the law provide for that?

The bill board company pulled the ads, the actual complaint was withdrawn when the guy lost.

 

[nodoginnafight]

According to the article 16 states have laws that say otherwise. This is a OH case they didn't give a list of the others.

I am talking about the specific law you posted about. If you want me to point out what is wrong with another law, feel free to post it.

The Ohio law makes it illegal to knowingly or recklessly make false statements about a candidate during an election.

See there, not a damn thing about the politician actually lying to everyone in sight, but if you say something bad about him your ass is going to jail. It takes a special kind of idiot to think this is a good idea, you aren't that kind of idiot.

So you're saying a politician giving a speech that talks about his opponent would be exempt? And you're wrong, I think politicians that think truth and honesty are elastic and can be stretched and distorted to fit the situation should be prosecuted, the same goes for groups that get involved in politics. How can we tell our children that the truth matters when we allow our supposed leaders to lie their asses off?

Tex - you have some very good points IMHO.
I just think the alternatives are worse - especially when we already have the tools at our disposal to punish the guilty - without running the risk of stifling political speech.
How many prosecutions would clog our courts?
How many would back away from the public debate for fear of saying something wrong? Wouldn't that just drive the debate underground and out of public sight?

Isn't that what the old cliche "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" describes?

 

[nodoginnafight]

You are right - in that case a prior restraint was requested.

I apologize.

actually - I'm not sure IF a prior restraint happened here. Did the government prohibit the speech in advance of publication (a prior restraint) or did the billboard company pull the ad voluntarily (not a prior restraint)?

Does anyone know?

The election commission was "urged" to block publication, so a prior restraint was requested. But did a prior restraint actually take place? Does the law provide for that?

The bill board company pulled the ads, the actual complaint was withdrawn when the guy lost.

OK, so a prior restraint didn't happen. Does this law provide for prior restraints? Do you know?

 

[OKTexas]

Ahh, campaign pledges and promises. Is there going to be a statue of limitations on this? How far back can we go? If their lies caused deaths can we charge them criminally? How about talking points or leaking false stories to the press, hell, how about writing false story and giving that to the press to publish..........

Now you are going to the absurd, A campaign pledge is a statement of intent and is not represented as fact.

It's not absurd, it's subjective. Let's go back just one administration and prosecute every lie from the Bush Administration then.

Are you saying President Obama wasn't campaigning and making promises to get the law passed when he said that?

maobama used those lies during his 2012 campaign well after he knew it to be a lie. It was a political decision by his campaign not to set the record straight. That in my opinion was fraud and should be prosecuted because they were used to raise money.

 

[Unkotare]

Unenforceable.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Now you are going to the absurd, A campaign pledge is a statement of intent and is not represented as fact.

It's not absurd, it's subjective. Let's go back just one administration and prosecute every lie from the Bush Administration then.

Are you saying President Obama wasn't campaigning and making promises to get the law passed when he said that?

maobama used those lies during his 2012 campaign well after he knew it to be a lie. It was a political decision by his campaign not to set the record straight. That in my opinion was fraud and should be prosecuted because they were used to raise money.

Did he say it AFTER the bill was passed?

 

[BlindBoo]

HOW does "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" have any meaning when you no longer HAVE a constitution?

Where did it go?

Shredded for its hemp content and smoked in a single evening in January, 2009.

Nope, Darth Vader used it for toilet paper in 2001. The parchment scratched his ass and made him even grumpier.

 

[OKTexas]

actually - I'm not sure IF a prior restraint happened here. Did the government prohibit the speech in advance of publication (a prior restraint) or did the billboard company pull the ad voluntarily (not a prior restraint)?

Does anyone know?

The election commission was "urged" to block publication, so a prior restraint was requested. But did a prior restraint actually take place? Does the law provide for that?

The bill board company pulled the ads, the actual complaint was withdrawn when the guy lost.

OK, so a prior restraint didn't happen. Does this law provide for prior restraints? Do you know?

Not that I've seen. The bill board company just wasn't going to take the chance of having liability after the investigation. Personally I don't think they would have liability any more than a printer would for printing campaign literature. The people buying the ads would be responsible.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The bill board company pulled the ads, the actual complaint was withdrawn when the guy lost.

OK, so a prior restraint didn't happen. Does this law provide for prior restraints? Do you know?

Not that I've seen. The bill board company just wasn't going to take the chance of having liability after the investigation. Personally I don't think they would have liability any more than a printer would for printing campaign literature. The people buying the ads would be responsible.

Thanks - I gotta fly - but I enjoy kicking it with you even when we disagree -

Hey windbag, you may want to neg rep me to counter-balance that positive one. I'm not so sure I was wrong now.

 

[jillian]

It's too subjective. A good politician knows how to phrase their message to get you to think something without them saying that thing explicitly.

How can you outlaw dumb and gullible?

There are examples that are clear and objective, like you dear leader continuing to claim after knowing it was untrue, that if you like your doctor you can keep him.......

Like I said earlier he raised hundreds of millions on those lies, should he really be held above the law?

i wonder if the above distortion would be subject to being outlawed.. given that the president has no control over what insurance companies do and anyone normal knows that he meant the LAW would not require anyone to give up their doctor. should he have phrased it better? absolutely. your comment however deserves the hammer.

or is it only left leaning politicians who should be subject to your truth in advertising requirements?

should we talk about bush saying he was going to run a "humble foreign policy"?

or should we talk about the birfer loons and crazies? or the ted cruz lies?

all politicians say things in the light most favorable to them.