Court to weigh challenge to ban on campaign lies

[OKTexas]

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?

The bill was passed in Dec 2009, he continued telling his lies into 2013 which included the whole 2012 election cycle. Not only did he keep saying it by many dem senators and reps did also. The white house admitted that they knew it to be false by Jul 2010.

 

[Pete7469]

I support the First Amendment - even for people who use it to disagree with me.

I worry about the burden of proof in establishing the falsehood of a claim and worry that enforcement could create a thought-police environment.

In a perfect world - the voters would punish campaigns that spread lies.

In a perfect world, yes.

Alas the world we live in is imperfect enough that a parasitic unqualified sociopathic scumbag is in the White House.

Slander and libel laws should be sufficient as they are. Getting courts involved to regulate every commercial and poster would stifle the process.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Do you honestly believe that the attorney general of Ohio is going to prosecute himself just because he says something that his opponent thinks is erroneous? Another thought, do you really want t give the attorney general of Ohio the power to prosecute another politician simply because he said something that might be factually lacking?

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

I believe he did a few times.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 lawyers of an sitting congresscritter threatened the owners of the billboard with legal action if they published the ad, that is prior restraint.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I'll refer you to post #43 in this thread. Should answer your questions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Keep it. Even if you were wrong about being wrong, you are still admitting you are wrong.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

You're suggesting there was a rough edge left in it after libtarded administrations like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Nixon and Clinton were done with it?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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?

Do you honestly believe that the attorney general of Ohio is going to prosecute himself just because he says something that his opponent thinks is erroneous? Another thought, do you really want t give the attorney general of Ohio the power to prosecute another politician simply because he said something that might be factually lacking?

See post #43, in short yes. Factually lacking, another way of saying lied?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I didn't even know states had laws against false political campaign ads. It should be a law in every state.

"As political campaigns begin to heat up, the Supreme Court is deciding whether false accusations and mudslinging made during an election can be punished as a crime.

Addressing an issue of negative campaigning that now may be a fact of life in American politics, justices will consider a challenge to an Ohio law that bars false statements about political candidates. The case being heard next week has attracted national attention, with least 15 other states having similar laws.

Groups across the political spectrum are criticizing the law as a restriction on the First Amendment right to free speech."

Court to Weigh Challenge to Ban on Campaign Lies - ABC News

Your thoughts?

I doubt lying in politics is protected speech.

However, how would such a law ever be enforced?

It has been in the past

We had fugitive slave laws in the past, getting drunk and raiding the ballot box and stuffing it, and have to listen to the pretend-conservative reactionary far right.

Can't be enforced.

 

[OKTexas]

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 lawyers of an sitting congresscritter threatened the owners of the billboard with legal action if they published the ad, that is prior restraint.

If that's true, it wasn't prior restraint by the state. The folks who wanted to purchase the ads should sue the congresscritter.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Do you honestly believe that the attorney general of Ohio is going to prosecute himself just because he says something that his opponent thinks is erroneous? Another thought, do you really want t give the attorney general of Ohio the power to prosecute another politician simply because he said something that might be factually lacking?

See post #43, in short yes. Factually lacking, another way of saying lied?

Think.

[W]here would we be without the knowledge that Democrats are pinko-communist flag-burners who want to tax churches and use the money to fund abortions so they can use the fetal stem cells to create pot-smoking lesbian ATF agents who will steal all the guns and invite the UN to take over America?
Voters have to decide whether we’d be better off electing Republicans, those hateful, assault-weapon-wielding maniacs who believe that George Washington and Jesus Christ incorporated the nation after a Gettysburg reenactment and that the only thing wrong with the death penalty is that it isn’t administered quickly enough to secular-humanist professors of Chicano studies.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/sba-list-merits-filed-brief.pdf

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 lawyers of an sitting congresscritter threatened the owners of the billboard with legal action if they published the ad, that is prior restraint.

If that's true, it wasn't prior restraint by the state. The folks who wanted to purchase the ads should sue the congresscritter.

The congresscritter filed a complaint with the state, and then withdrew it after the election. The Attorney General of Ohio filed a brief opposing the law. There is widespread, bipartisan, opposition to the law.

“While George Washington may have been incapable of telling a lie, his successors have not had the same integrity. The campaign promise (and its subsequent violation), as well as disparaging statements about one’s opponent (whether true, mostly true, mostly not true, or entirely fantastic), are cornerstones of American democracy. Indeed, mocking and satire are as old as America, and if this Court doesn’t believe amici, it can ask Thomas Jefferson, ‘the son of a half-breed squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.’”

When does a fact become a lie? Obama said that "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," for 5 years. We all know it was a lie, yet it was rated as true for all 5 years by the exact same people who say it is the Lie of the Year for 2013. It is not the government's job to prosecute people for lying unless yo can prove both actual harm and intent to cause it. We are better off with a system where people can lie than one where every statement can be challenged in court.

 

[OKTexas]

Do you honestly believe that the attorney general of Ohio is going to prosecute himself just because he says something that his opponent thinks is erroneous? Another thought, do you really want t give the attorney general of Ohio the power to prosecute another politician simply because he said something that might be factually lacking?

See post #43, in short yes. Factually lacking, another way of saying lied?

Think.

[W]here would we be without the knowledge that Democrats are pinko-communist flag-burners who want to tax churches and use the money to fund abortions so they can use the fetal stem cells to create pot-smoking lesbian ATF agents who will steal all the guns and invite the UN to take over America?
Voters have to decide whether we’d be better off electing Republicans, those hateful, assault-weapon-wielding maniacs who believe that George Washington and Jesus Christ incorporated the nation after a Gettysburg reenactment and that the only thing wrong with the death penalty is that it isn’t administered quickly enough to secular-humanist professors of Chicano studies.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/sba-list-merits-filed-brief.pdf

Satire is a totally different subject, but why not muddy the waters when you got nothing else. Care should be used when any laws are enforced, but giving politicians a free pass in just as dangerous, if not more so, than doing nothing. If current events don't convince you of that, I'm not sure anything will.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

See post #43, in short yes. Factually lacking, another way of saying lied?

Think.

[W]here would we be without the knowledge that Democrats are pinko-communist flag-burners who want to tax churches and use the money to fund abortions so they can use the fetal stem cells to create pot-smoking lesbian ATF agents who will steal all the guns and invite the UN to take over America?
Voters have to decide whether we’d be better off electing Republicans, those hateful, assault-weapon-wielding maniacs who believe that George Washington and Jesus Christ incorporated the nation after a Gettysburg reenactment and that the only thing wrong with the death penalty is that it isn’t administered quickly enough to secular-humanist professors of Chicano studies.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/sba-list-merits-filed-brief.pdf

Satire is a totally different subject, but why not muddy the waters when you got nothing else. Care should be used when any laws are enforced, but giving politicians a free pass in just as dangerous, if not more so, than doing nothing. If current events don't convince you of that, I'm not sure anything will.

Let me put it to you this way, this law is designed to protect politicians, not punish them, just like all other campaign laws on the books. By supporting it you support reinforcing the system that you want to change.

 

[OKTexas]

The lawyers of an sitting congresscritter threatened the owners of the billboard with legal action if they published the ad, that is prior restraint.

If that's true, it wasn't prior restraint by the state. The folks who wanted to purchase the ads should sue the congresscritter.

The congresscritter filed a complaint with the state, and then withdrew it after the election. The Attorney General of Ohio filed a brief opposing the law. There is widespread, bipartisan, opposition to the law.

“While George Washington may have been incapable of telling a lie, his successors have not had the same integrity. The campaign promise (and its subsequent violation), as well as disparaging statements about one’s opponent (whether true, mostly true, mostly not true, or entirely fantastic), are cornerstones of American democracy. Indeed, mocking and satire are as old as America, and if this Court doesn’t believe amici, it can ask Thomas Jefferson, ‘the son of a half-breed squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.’”

When does a fact become a lie? Obama said that "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," for 5 years. We all know it was a lie, yet it was rated as true for all 5 years by the exact same people who say it is the Lie of the Year for 2013. It is not the government's job to prosecute people for lying unless yo can prove both actual harm and intent to cause it. We are better off with a system where people can lie than one where every statement can be challenged in court.

Like I said earlier, the white house knew in Jul 2010 the statements were not true but made a political decision to keep repeating it all the way into 2013. That was willful and intentional deceit that was used to raise money. That is fraud, it is a crime in every state. Should we just accept that while telling young people to be honest and integrity matters? I don't think we should.

 

[g5000]

I didn't even know states had laws against false political campaign ads. It should be a law in every state.

So you believe calling Obama a Muslim and a Marxist and saying he was born in Kenya should be illegal, eh? I find that hard to believe.

 

[g5000]

Like I said earlier, the white house knew in Jul 2010 the statements were not true but made a political decision to keep repeating it all the way into 2013. That was willful and intentional deceit that was used to raise money. That is fraud, it is a crime in every state. Should we just accept that while telling young people to be honest and integrity matters? I don't think we should.

The law at issue in this topic is not about making promises you can't keep. The law is about smearing a candidate with lies.

 

[g5000]

Example:

Politician A supports a law which would ban extraterrestrials from voting in America. Buried somewhere inside that 200 page bill there is a rider to give food stamps to hookers.

Poltician B also does not want extraterrestrials to vote in America and he publicly announces he supports the Anti-ET Voting Act.

SuperPAC C runs an ad claiming Politician B supports giving food stamps to hookers.


That is the sort of thing this law would ban.

 

[OKTexas]

I didn't even know states had laws against false political campaign ads. It should be a law in every state.

So you believe calling Obama a Muslim and a Marxist and saying he was born in Kenya should be illegal, eh? I find that hard to believe.

If it were proven to be false, absolutely, but the dear leader would have to release his records to actually prove it false wouldn't he. Hasn't done that has he? There are still major questions being raised by many reputable people as to the authenticity of his birth certificate. His grade school records in Indonesia indicated he was a muslim and his parents , grandparents and mentor were marxist and communist. Then you have his own admission that he sought out the most radical professors and students in college might make those accusations hard to prove false. Personally, I think he has moderated for political convenience, but hasn't really changed his ideology.