Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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!
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!
No, the moral of the story is that riders should not be allowed.
This is exactly how Kerry got his flip-flopper rep. He supported a bill until someone stuck a rider in it which he disagreed with.
It would definitely thin out the HERD of liars that want to be in politics for monetary gain.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.
Agreed. I hate 'riders' attached to bills, especially when those riders have ZERO to do with the original bill.The moral of this story, read the bill!
No, the moral of the story is that riders should not be allowed.
This is exactly how Kerry got his flip-flopper rep. He supported a bill until someone stuck a rider in it which he disagreed with.
Always said, one bill, one subject. That would force people to take a stand every time, no excuses.
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 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.
*I think NOT*. With free speech comes responsibility. Get it?
POINT OUT Their Lies or BACK OFF skinner...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 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.
*I think NOT*. With free speech comes responsibility. Get it?
I do. Does Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Sen. Cruz or Rush Limbaugh get it?
No.
Such laws would be used against third parties who would end up in mountains of debt over litigation, while Union/Banker/Corporate funded Democrats and Republicans would suffer no financial hardship at all.
Unless one is under oath or affirmation, lying should never be against the law, since it's so easy for corrupt powers to punish those telling the truth, especially if we enter an age of censorship.
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?
If you take lies, deception, and mudslinging out of political campaigns and force politicians to use facts and truth there will be utter chaos as the people could not handle it it could even bring about the end of the world as we know it.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?
Well, we have these little things called 'Courts'.Who decides? Who decides whether campaign ads are accurate, the political administration in power? Do you pick out a part of the platform that doesn't seem quite right and arrest the candidate? This is dangerous stuff reminiscent of the Bolshies and Nazis.
Well, we have these little things called 'Courts'.Who decides? Who decides whether campaign ads are accurate, the political administration in power? Do you pick out a part of the platform that doesn't seem quite right and arrest the candidate? This is dangerous stuff reminiscent of the Bolshies and Nazis.
Allegedly, they are disinterested third parties with impartiality.
With the Courts and their history of overriding the will of the people and legislating from the bench?Well, we have these little things called 'Courts'.Who decides? Who decides whether campaign ads are accurate, the political administration in power? Do you pick out a part of the platform that doesn't seem quite right and arrest the candidate? This is dangerous stuff reminiscent of the Bolshies and Nazis.
Allegedly, they are disinterested third parties with impartiality.
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.
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 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.
*I think NOT*. With free speech comes responsibility. Get it?
I do. Does Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Sen. Cruz or Rush Limbaugh get it?
I think making direct lies in campaigns illegal is a great idea...How can people make sound decisions based on that which isn't real?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
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?
