Discussion for article #223967
Thomas actually authored an opinion? That’s the big news. Guess, since it was a unanimous ruling, the other Justices felt sorry for him and let him author.
16 Likes
Or at least let him sign his name to it as if he’d written it.
10 Likes
The Supremes ruled in favor of free speech and the First Amendment.
2 Likes
Clarence the mime (a silent guy painted white…) rushed to be the defender of campaign lies, when previously he could only be moved to watch porn and play with his body hair while tampering with open containers of cola.
8 Likes
This opinion has nothing to do with the substance of the dispute. It is only a ruling to allow the case to go forward. That said, we know the Supreme Court will quickly take action to protect lies in the name of free speech.
24 Likes
This is a fascinating case. I don’t think you can legislate against lying. There are already libel and slander laws on the books, so if your lie negatively impacts the subject, then they can bring a case. But to prohibit lying is just not feasible. Even fact checkers can’t always agree what is a lie and what is not, that’s why politifact (and I am not a fan of theirs) has so many shades of lying from half truths to mostly true, to mostly false to pants on fire.
8 Likes
“There are already libel and slander laws on the books, so if your lie negatively impacts the subject”
Except that this case involves public figures, who are quite specifically prevented from bringing libel or slander suits unless deliberate malice can be proved, which is impossible for all practical purposes.
Make no mistake, this is a case about freeing Corporate Persons from any obligation to ensure that their speech-dollars have any connection to reality. Simple as that.
22 Likes
Conservatives including Justice Antonin Scalia have sardonically dubbed it the “Ministry of Truth” statute.
Nice to see such a shining example of impartiality on the part of a Supreme Court justice.
Driehaus has since left Congress. But the Supreme Court has permitted the constitutional challenge against the Ohio law to move forward, concluding that “the threat of future enforcement of the false statement statute is substantial.”
Does nobody care about the potential damage to the entity being falsely accused?
7 Likes
Freedom of speech is no more absolute than is any other freedom guaranteed by the constitution. They are all subject to reasonable qualification. Or should be.
2 Likes
I agree.
I bet Tony dictated it, after talking with the KochBoys, to Clarence’s law clerk.
2 Likes
I don’t think it’s all that uncommon for Thomas to author a decision or dissent. It’s never saying or asking anything during oral arguments he’s known for.
1 Like
I didn’t recognize the Clarence without Tony…
1 Like
And lying about it under oath during his confirmation hearing. You can see why this case would appeal to him. Lying is great, so let’s protect it!
1 Like
No, they didn’t. They ruled that they will hear a case concerning those issues.
4 Likes
Absolutely, there are limitations on free speech, but I think outlawing lying in a political campaign goes too far. Let’s be frank, most political ads contain lies. Many are nothing but. The answer when your opponent lies about you is to call them on it.
1 Like
Susan B. Anthony can get Joe Isuzu to do their commercials.
2 Likes
Lies should not be allowed in political advertising- period. But, of course, that’s not going to stop those who benefit from the lies from pushing forward with wanting those lies to be seen as the truth.
1 Like
SBA should have been allowed to put up the billboard. And the congresswoman should have won a libel lawsuit against SBA.
1 Like