High Court Rules That Candidates May Deliberately Lie About Opponents

Posted by GottaLaff at 11:12 AM on October 5, 2007.

GottaLaff: Dissenting justices called the decision "an invitation to lie with impunity."

Post Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
8 COMMENTS

Former Senator Max Cleland (D-GA), infamous victim of dishonest attack ads.

Share and save this post:

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

PEEK RSS Feed

Main AlterNet RSS Feed

Also in PEEK

Dems' Godly God-Fest Ends with Prayer by Former Christian Coalition Leader
Joshua Holland AlterNet

John McCain is Older Than Alaska
Isaac Fitzgerald AlterNet

Palin Thinks Hillary is a Whiner
Melissa McEwan Shakesville

This post, written by GottaLaff, originally appeared on Cliff Schecter's Brave New Films Blog

Court cases are on my mind today, I guess. This one really irks me, but should thrill Rovians:

A law that bars political candidates from deliberately lying about their opponents is unconstitutional, a sharply divided state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Justices in the majority of the 5-4 decision said the 1999 law, already rejected by a lower court, violates free-speech rights.

Shouldn't there be rulings for truth and honesty instead of Swift Boating and viral lies? Freedom of speech is one thing, deception is another.

"The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the 1st Amendment," Justice James Johnson wrote.

Dissenting justices called the decision "an invitation to lie with impunity."

Ohhh, okay. Big Government is the issue. So negative campaigning just got the blessing of the court because they're worried about that. I guess it's okay with them that Big Government has been lying to us for a very long time, and we "final arbiters" can't seem to stop them. ::coughIRAQcough::

A dissenting voice:

"The majority opinion advances the efforts of those who would turn political campaigns into contests of the best stratagems of lies and deceit, to the end that honest discourse and honest candidates are lost in the maelstrom," Justice Barbara Madsen wrote.

By the time false stories, accusations, and smears are denied and/or proved false, it's too late. The vile words are out there and they are hard, if not impossible, to undo.

Just ask the Clintons, John Kerry, John McCain, Max Cleland, Ann Richards, and Al Gore, to name a few.

Tagged as: rove, gore, cleland, kerry, elections, campaign reform, justice system

GottaLaff is a regular blogger for Cliff Schecter's Blog

Return to PEEK » Post Tools: EMAIL PRINT 8 COMMENTS PERMALINK

Also in PEEK
Dems' Godly God-Fest Ends with Prayer by Former Christian Coalition Leader A leader among the "New Evangelicals." Post by Joshua Holland. August 29, 2008.	John McCain is Older Than Alaska 23 years older. Post by Isaac Fitzgerald. August 29, 2008.	Palin Thinks Hillary is a Whiner These days Palin is all about praising Hillary's efforts, but she used to sing a different tune. Post by Melissa McEwan. August 29, 2008.

Comments	Turn comments off sitewide	Give us feedback »
Comments closed. The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.		View:
JJ must have been a "C" student like his buddy the Chimp [Report this comment] Posted by: DaBear on Oct 5, 2007 1:31 PM Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] "The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the 1st Amendment," Justice James Johnson wrote. Brilliant! By this logic, the entire notion of laws or even government at all is fundamentally at odds with the 1st Amendment. His disHonor JJ needs to go back to college and take rhetoric 101. What a dipshit. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » RE: JJ must have been a "C" student like his buddy the Chimp Posted by: somegirl Properly decided [Report this comment] Posted by: brunowe on Oct 5, 2007 4:28 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] These are public figures--the laws that bar lying about them are already covered in the laws regarding libel and slander. To pass anything more restrictive would run afoul of the First Amendment interests laid out in New York Times vs. Sullivan that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Ultimately, the best response if for political campaigns to be smart enough to point out, and jump on, a lie so that it blows up in the face of the liar. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » Exactly, and, as public figure, the rules for slander/libel are "looser" since they've put themselve Posted by: albrechtkrausse » You guys are missing a CENTRAL point. Posted by: Malcolm Calder » You guys are missing a CENTRAL point. Posted by: Malcolm Calder Phrogg [Report this comment] Posted by: phrogg40 on Oct 6, 2007 1:30 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Seems to me this means we can't trust anyone in politics anymore - not that I really did. But now I don't feel I can trust or respect the high courts either. If they think lying is OK, than how can one trust that they aren't dishonest as well? [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] "We, The People" ain't always the same. [Report this comment] Posted by: Malcolm Calder on Oct 8, 2007 5:56 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Carefully compare the sense of "the People" in A (the Preamble to the Constitution) and B (Justice JJ's opinion). ================= A) "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union [...] do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America ." B) "The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the 1st Amendment," Justice James Johnson wrote." ================= In (A), "the People" is coherent as an entity because they are expressing a collective interest, which cannot be satisfied for an individual as an individual, but only for individuals collectively. There is no such coherence in (B)! The People's collective interest is in an assurance that they may individually decide upon candidates based on free access to information that is collectively constrained to basic standards of objective truth. This doesn't imply setting up the Government, but rather demonstrable facts, as "final arbiter". This has no bearing on the expression of opinions, only on the telling of bald lies. The Justice's Opinion assumes that "the People" have a collective interest in individually serving as diligent investigators, to sort through the complex of statements in a campaign, in order to determine what is true and what is false, objectively - thence to make judgments based on opinion. I doubt many People would agree. But by casting it in terms of "the people" versus "the Government", he conflates different senses of "the people". In the Preamble, to be sure, it was the People creating the Government to serve their collective interests. [Prophylaxis: my comments directly address only the Justice's cited reasoning, not the Free Speech issue itself.] [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

«	August 2008					»
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31

» RE: JJ must have been a "C" student like his buddy the Chimp Posted by: somegirl

» Exactly, and, as public figure, the rules for slander/libel are "looser" since they've put themselve Posted by: albrechtkrausse

» You guys are missing a CENTRAL point. Posted by: Malcolm Calder

» You guys are missing a CENTRAL point. Posted by: Malcolm Calder

PEEK archive by date:

Use » and « to view other months.

Search:

» RE: JJ must have been a "C" student like his buddy the Chimp Posted by: somegirl

» Exactly, and, as public figure, the rules for slander/libel are "looser" since they've put themselve Posted by: albrechtkrausse

» You guys are missing a CENTRAL point. Posted by: Malcolm Calder

» You guys are missing a CENTRAL point. Posted by: Malcolm Calder