Court to weigh challenge to ban on campaign lies

[OKTexas]

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.

The moral of this story, read the bill!

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Wasn't directed at this law, it was in relation to knowingly making false statements while raising funds, that is fraud, punishable in every state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

this is the problem "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"

A lie is an intentional statement with intent to deceive

Yhat can never be proved and the court will find against the plaintiff make him pay all costs and then issue a public apology, a massive public apology

 

[JakeStarkey]

But, if one can prove that Cruz is making money on intentional lies, the law would end his candidacy for anything

something to think about

 

[Vigilante]

But, if one can prove that Cruz is making money on intentional lies, the law would end his candidacy for anything

something to think about

Why, it didn't for B. Insane!

 

[OKTexas]

But, if one can prove that Cruz is making money on intentional lies, the law would end his candidacy for anything

something to think about

I wouldn't have a problem with that, if a politician can't win with honesty and integrity, I don't want them in office. We shouldn't be rewarding the best liars and spin artist, I've already seen way too much of that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

this is the problem "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"

A lie is an intentional statement with intent to deceive

Yhat can never be proved and the court will find against the plaintiff make him pay all costs and then issue a public apology, a massive public apology

That depends on who is on the jury, doesn't it?

 

[Politico]

The six pages of thread is the reason the whole thing is needed. People are a bunch of idiots who need to be protected from themselves. You can't even have a discussion.

 

[HenryBHough]

The six pages of thread is the reason the whole thing is needed. People are a bunch of idiots who need to be protected from themselves. You can't even have a discussion.

A clear indication, that, of a party to a discussion having concluded he/she/it has irretrievably lost.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The six pages of thread is the reason the whole thing is needed. People are a bunch of idiots who need to be protected from themselves. You can't even have a discussion.

The discussion that has been going on for 6 pages is proof that people can't discuss it?

 

[Wry Catcher]

A very slippery slope.

So, let's put every candidate under oath, and those that lie indict them for perjury. Or is that too slippery a slope?

 

[deltex1]

Banning lies would render Obabble mute.

 

[nodoginnafight]

A very slippery slope.

So, let's put every candidate under oath, and those that lie indict them for perjury. Or is that too slippery a slope?

And how many cases would flood our judicial system? How many times would a politician refuse to a public debate on the issues for fear of making a mistake and getting prosecuted for it?

Voters should punish the liars - not the courts.

That's MHO.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

OK - pre-passage it's an election promise or position. Post passage - it's a lie. And I think the two are different.
That's MHO.

 

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

I'm sorry, but lawyers' threats that result in a voluntary silence is not a prior restraint - it doesn't fit the definition which is bolded above.

 

[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.

I'm sorry, but lawyers' threats that result in a voluntary silence is not a prior restraint - it doesn't fit the definition which is bolded above.

The Congresscritter also asked the government to ban the ad before it was on the billboards. If the law permits that it makes it prior restraint by the government.

 

[francoHFW]

These laws are unconstitutional. On the other hand, bring back the Fairness Doctrine to the extent of a couple minutes of argument an hour, to break the brainwashing spell on the hater dupes...

Obama wasn't lying on health insurance, just didn't know how much the dupes liked crappy insurance that left them open to bankruptcy and ruin. ALSO, insurers could have brought the plans up to spec instead of one last greedy grab...

 

[Wry Catcher]

A very slippery slope.

So, let's put every candidate under oath, and those that lie indict them for perjury. Or is that too slippery a slope?

And how many cases would flood our judicial system? How many times would a politician refuse to a public debate on the issues for fear of making a mistake and getting prosecuted for it?

Voters should punish the liars - not the courts.

That's MHO.

Mistakes aren't calumny. Anyway, I was being facetious. I do believe penalties should be imposed when a lie is made against a public figure; why should a public figure be denied equal protection of the law?

Too often people are hurt by lies, when done in the public domain the victim deserves the right to sue civilly, and in some cases see justice served when the liar is charged with and punished for libel or slander.

 

[OKTexas]

A very slippery slope.

So, let's put every candidate under oath, and those that lie indict them for perjury. Or is that too slippery a slope?

Actually I would have no problem with that, it's time we the people tell the folks who want to be our "leaders", honesty is the first job requirement.

 

[The T]

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.

Does the 1st support yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre when no such conditions existed and people get hurt or killed as a result?

*I think NOT*. With free speech comes responsibility. Get it?