Court to weigh challenge to ban on campaign lies

[dr.d]

Condoning lies in campaigns is not a form of protecting free speech...it's protecting THEFT which is a criminal act.
There is a difference between honestly winning votes and stealing them thru lies ....in the latter, u r taking something from a citizen without her/his informed consent.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[nodoginnafight]

Verification that statements are direct lies..especially if the misrepresent an opponent.. Not just overly optimistic campaign promises.
Followed by adjudication.
Followed by severe penalties accompanied by public disclosure.
If repeated, the culprit to be removed from the campaign by the leader of the party involved.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Ok, so WHO determines the statement to be a lie?
Who adjudicates the case?
What penalties?
And by the time all this happens the campaign the offender is to be removed from is long over

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Asking for a prior restraint doesn't equal a prior restraint unless it is granted and enforced by the government. You used a legal term "prior restraint" that has a legal definition. The case you cite does not meet that legal definition.

Now if you want to argue that you are using the term "prior restraint" in a non-legal contest in which the threat of after-publication legal action and the response to that threat of after-publication legal action resulted in what is "essentially a prior restraint," then OK.

But the case you cite doesn't meet the legal definition of a prior restraint.

Yes, I used a legal term because that is what the Congresscritter was asking for, prior restraint on speech. The fact that he lost the election, and dropped the complaint, does not change the fact that he tried to use the government to stop people from placing an ad he did not like.

Now, if you want to argue that the fact that he succeeded in stopping the speech through another avenue somehow negates the fact that he actually asked the government to prevent them from running the ad, feel free. I doubt even you can wrap your head the logical contradiction that would be required t argue that way, but feel free to give it a shot.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

Asking for a prior restraint doesn't equal a prior restraint unless it is granted and enforced by the government. You used a legal term "prior restraint" that has a legal definition. The case you cite does not meet that legal definition.

Now if you want to argue that you are using the term "prior restraint" in a non-legal contest in which the threat of after-publication legal action and the response to that threat of after-publication legal action resulted in what is "essentially a prior restraint," then OK.

But the case you cite doesn't meet the legal definition of a prior restraint.

Yes, I used a legal term because that is what the Congresscritter was asking for, prior restraint on speech. The fact that he lost the election, and dropped the complaint, does not change the fact that he tried to use the government to stop people from placing an ad he did not like.

Now, if you want to argue that the fact that he succeeded in stopping the speech through another avenue somehow negates the fact that he actually asked the government to prevent them from running the ad, feel free. I doubt even you can wrap your head the logical contradiction that would be required t argue that way, but feel free to give it a shot.

Ok, so we have confirmed that he may have asked for a prior restraint - but he did not get one.

There was no prior restraint.

Thanks, that's what I've been saying all along.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

The con court rules that money is speech, corporations are people. Now they're going to rule that fraud is free speech too. The immorality of the SCOTUS makes pedophilia look angelic.

You are misinformed, as usual. Buckley v Valeo was decided in 1976. The case was filed by liberals, and was decided by a liberal majority on the court. In fact, your position is in tune with what Scalia and Thomas have been arguing in multiple dissenting decision.

I guess that makes you a conservative.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Condoning lies in campaigns is not a form of protecting free speech...it's protecting THEFT which is a criminal act.
There is a difference between honestly winning votes and stealing them thru lies ....in the latter, u r taking something from a citizen without her/his informed consent.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Telling people they can't say something is censorship.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Asking for a prior restraint doesn't equal a prior restraint unless it is granted and enforced by the government. You used a legal term "prior restraint" that has a legal definition. The case you cite does not meet that legal definition.

Now if you want to argue that you are using the term "prior restraint" in a non-legal contest in which the threat of after-publication legal action and the response to that threat of after-publication legal action resulted in what is "essentially a prior restraint," then OK.

But the case you cite doesn't meet the legal definition of a prior restraint.

Yes, I used a legal term because that is what the Congresscritter was asking for, prior restraint on speech. The fact that he lost the election, and dropped the complaint, does not change the fact that he tried to use the government to stop people from placing an ad he did not like.

Now, if you want to argue that the fact that he succeeded in stopping the speech through another avenue somehow negates the fact that he actually asked the government to prevent them from running the ad, feel free. I doubt even you can wrap your head the logical contradiction that would be required t argue that way, but feel free to give it a shot.

Ok, so we have confirmed that he may have asked for a prior restraint - but he did not get one.

There was no prior restraint.

Thanks, that's what I've been saying all along.

Now, feel free to go back to where I said the law amounts to prior restrain, and you said you don't see it, and point out how I misused the term in that post.

 

[hangover]

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?

The con court rules that money is speech, corporations are people. Now they're going to rule that fraud is free speech too. The immorality of the SCOTUS makes pedophilia look angelic.

You are misinformed, as usual. Buckley v Valeo was decided in 1976. The case was filed by liberals, and was decided by a liberal majority on the court. In fact, your position is in tune with what Scalia and Thomas have been arguing in multiple dissenting decision.

I guess that makes you a conservative.

I see you're not waiting for the court ruling to legalize GOP lies.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yes, I used a legal term because that is what the Congresscritter was asking for, prior restraint on speech. The fact that he lost the election, and dropped the complaint, does not change the fact that he tried to use the government to stop people from placing an ad he did not like.

Now, if you want to argue that the fact that he succeeded in stopping the speech through another avenue somehow negates the fact that he actually asked the government to prevent them from running the ad, feel free. I doubt even you can wrap your head the logical contradiction that would be required t argue that way, but feel free to give it a shot.

Ok, so we have confirmed that he may have asked for a prior restraint - but he did not get one.

There was no prior restraint.



Thanks, that's what I've been saying all along.

Now, feel free to go back to where I said the law amounts to prior restrain, and you said you don't see it, and point out how I misused the term in that post.

show me the law you are talking about

Because the one under discussion - penalizing politicians for lying (after the fact) is certainly not a prior restraint.

Violation of the false-statement law is a first-degree misdemeanor, providing for a six-month jail term and $5,000 fine. A second violation would result in the person losing his or her right to vote.

So you have to actually make the statement first and possibly get punished afterwards ... that's not prior restraint

 

[nodoginnafight]

So when I thought I was wrong, I admitted it and apologized.
When I demonstrate YOU are wrong - you disappear from the tread.

OK, nice to know.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The con court rules that money is speech, corporations are people. Now they're going to rule that fraud is free speech too. The immorality of the SCOTUS makes pedophilia look angelic.

You are misinformed, as usual. Buckley v Valeo was decided in 1976. The case was filed by liberals, and was decided by a liberal majority on the court. In fact, your position is in tune with what Scalia and Thomas have been arguing in multiple dissenting decision.

I guess that makes you a conservative.

I see you're not waiting for the court ruling to legalize GOP lies.

Hilarious.

Buckley v Valeo was decided in 1975, Citizens United v FEC was decided in 2010. Buckley said that money is speech, not Citizens United. Buckley was decided by a liberal majority of the court, not a conservative majority. That makes your claim that the cons ruled that way in Citizens United wrong.

The majority of the Supreme Court held that a key provision of the Campaign Finance Act, § 608(a), which limited expenditure at election campaigns was "unconstitutional", and contrary to the First Amendment. The leading opinion viewed spending money as a form of political "speech" which could not be restricted.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ok, so we have confirmed that he may have asked for a prior restraint - but he did not get one.

There was no prior restraint.



Thanks, that's what I've been saying all along.

Now, feel free to go back to where I said the law amounts to prior restrain, and you said you don't see it, and point out how I misused the term in that post.

show me the law you are talking about

Because the one under discussion - penalizing politicians for lying (after the fact) is certainly not a prior restraint.

Violation of the false-statement law is a first-degree misdemeanor, providing for a six-month jail term and $5,000 fine. A second violation would result in the person losing his or her right to vote.

So you have to actually make the statement first and possibly get punished afterwards ... that's not prior restraint

I quote, again, from the OP link.

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.

That, as I already said, amounts to prior restraint.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So when I thought I was wrong, I admitted it and apologized.
When I demonstrate YOU are wrong - you disappear from the tread.

OK, nice to know.

Wow, I don't see everything that occurs on this forum.

Feel free to show me where you proved me wrong, all you did was waffle on your admission that I was right by declaring that, since the government didn't actually order the ads blocked, that automatically proves that is isn't prior restraint, even though the Congresscritter actually asked the government to exercise prior restraint.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So when I thought I was wrong, I admitted it and apologized.
When I demonstrate YOU are wrong - you disappear from the tread.

OK, nice to know.

Wow, I don't see everything that occurs on this forum.

Feel free to show me where you proved me wrong, all you did was waffle on your admission that I was right by declaring that, since the government didn't actually order the ads blocked, that automatically proves that is isn't prior restraint, even though the Congresscritter actually asked the government to exercise prior restraint.

ASKING for a prior restraint does not equal a prior restraint. I assume you are smart enough to know that, but dishonest enough to not admit it because it proves you were wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So when I thought I was wrong, I admitted it and apologized.
When I demonstrate YOU are wrong - you disappear from the tread.

OK, nice to know.

Wow, I don't see everything that occurs on this forum.

Feel free to show me where you proved me wrong, all you did was waffle on your admission that I was right by declaring that, since the government didn't actually order the ads blocked, that automatically proves that is isn't prior restraint, even though the Congresscritter actually asked the government to exercise prior restraint.

ASKING for a prior restraint does not equal a prior restraint. I assume you are smart enough to know that, but dishonest enough to not admit it because it proves you were wrong.

Didn't say it did, asshole. What I said is that the law amounts to prior restraint. The way that works, oh he who has to be led by the fucking nose, is that the threat of government action is burdensome enough to amount to prior restraint. That is why the billboard company elected not to publish the ads, they did not want to open themselves up to the legal liability that would occur if the ads were found to be factually wrong.

Funny thing, that is part of the argument that got the Supreme Court to grant cert.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/SBADriehaus13TermCERT.pdf

 

[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.

So when you say:

Didn't say it did, asshole.

You were lying.

The law doesn't provide for any prior restraint at all. Prior restraint has a specific legal definition. And NOTHING about this law or this case comes anywhere close to meeting that definition.

All your squirming and spinning and backpedaling doesn't change that.

 

[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.




Read the fucking links you brain dead moron.

So when you say:

Didn't say it did, asshole.

You were lying.

The law doesn't provide for any prior restraint at all. Prior restraint has a specific legal definition. And NOTHING about this law or this case comes anywhere close to meeting that definition.

All your squirming and spinning and backpedaling doesn't change that.

As usual, I don't see what you think you proved. I said it amounts to prior restraint, you said you don't see it, I posted the portion of the story that showed why I said that, called you a brain dead moron for not seeing it, and have consistently maintained that it amounts to prior restraint. I even explained the legal theory behind my reasoning.

Yet you keep trying to get me to admit that I said something I didn't in order to prove that I was wrong about what I didn't say.

 

[nodoginnafight]

As usual, I don't see what you think you proved.

Yes, because as usual, you find it easier to plead ignorance than admit you're wrong.

I said it amounts to prior restraint

Which I have proven - by definition - it does not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As usual, I don't see what you think you proved.

Yes, because as usual, you find it easier to plead ignorance than admit you're wrong.

I said it amounts to prior restraint

Which I have proven - by definition - it does not.

Funny thing about me being wrong, it seems I am right.

"Don't you think," asked Justice Kennedy to Ohio State Solicitor Eric Murphy, "there's a serious First Amendment concern with a state law that requires you to come before a commission to justify what you are going to say and which gives the commission discovery power to find out who's involved in your association, what research you made, et cetera?"

SCOTUS Grills Ohio Over Its Speech-Suppressing 'Ministry of Truth' - Hit & Run : Reason.com

In other words, it actually requires you to prove you are telling the truth before you can talk. That is prior restraint.

Intelligent people stop trying to prove they are right after they admit they were wrong.

 

[American Horse]

This won't be used to prosecute elected politicians for promises that turn out to be lies, so don't take stock in that.

If prosecution is permitted it will be used against ordinary citizens or citizens groups (think Tea Party here) who have dared to speak out against politicians already in power, and to discourage any criticism whatsoever gainst those incumbents.

It will be used to shut people up because they won't be sure that they won't be cought athwart of such legal jeopardy.