[quote=“MisterNeutron, post:23, topic:5816”]Frankly, I’d rather let the mud be slung. It’s not as if the aggrieved party can’t respond.
[/quote]
When one side has billions (yes, billions) of dollars more than the other for slinging mud, that ultimately doesn’t work. I think what we’re going to see in the coming election cycle(s) is also some cases of saturation, where the folks on one side simply reserve every billboard and every available time slot in the target area, so that, no, the aggrieved party can’t respond.
Arguments about a chilling effect on free speech of these laws may have some validity. Honest people do sometimes make accusations they think are well-founded but turn out to be false. Concluding someone has lied involves making inferences about what was going through the mind of a person who’s made a provably false statement at the time he made it. How do YOU know for certain that HE knew the claim he made was false?
But you could make the exact same criticism of libel laws. Should someone falsely accusing another person of being a child molester be free of legal consequences? I don’t think so.
And some of political attacks, such as the false accusations made about John Kerry’s Vietnam war record could be considered libel if made against a private person rather than against a person running for elective office. Especially now that the Supreme Court has ruled that limitless amounts of money can be spent on spreading vicious lies about political candidates, I think laws against politically motivated lying are needed now more than they’ve been in the past.
I think the Supreme court is only half right. While it is true that being able to spend a certain amount of money is part of free speech, there is a point where you are spending so much you are denying free speech to everyone else. (The concept is obvious, but I had not heard it termed “saturation”.)
But if you are going to spend any money to promote an idea, it seems reasonable that there be penalties if those ideas are false.
In the Driehaus case, the ACA explicitly applys the Hyde Amendment restrictions to abortion coverage. Bart Stupak (D–MI) and other long-time, Democratic pro-lifers, in negotiations with President Obama, insisted on Hyde for their supporting votes. Without their votes, the ACA bill would not have passed.
The evidence that the SBAL knowingly and recklessly lied is black and (not "or) white.
I agree, that such cases may be few when making political claims; but when they exist, laws such as Ohio’s should prevail.
I’ve been watching them a long time, and I don’t recall that…ever.
They’ve always had the same goals they’re pushing now, but since they’ve had some success it’s led them to show too much of their intent (restricting contraception for example).
