High Court Rules That Candidates May Deliberately Lie About Opponents

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

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

GottaLaff is a regular blogger for Cliff Schecter's Blog