Discussion for article #221375
The right: we cannot win without lying so please do not force us to tell the truth.
In the United states I grew up in, a law barring lies would be a good idea; just an extention of laws against libel, slander, and yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. But after 40 years of Republicans twisting the truth and asserting that they create their own reality, I don’t know. I’d like to see candidates like Mitt Romney called on their multiple lies per day on the campaign trail, but I fear what we would get instead is spurious court action on right wing interpretations of truthful startements; when Al Gore says he helped fund the invention of the internet it would get twisted into Al gore says he invented the internet and litigated endlessly by some Koch brothers astroturf front.
This is where the churches could be really helpful, instilling integrity and an appreciation for integrity in their congregations, and pointing out when a candidate has no integrity rather than when the candidate does not agree with the current church leadership’s interpretation of scripture.
Outing lies is, of course, is what a free press is supposed to do and almost never does. So, with a corrupt press we are forced to look for other solutions.
1 Like
With all due respect to PJ O’Rourke, none of the three cases mentioned in this article involve remarks about other political candidates, which is what the Ohio law addresses. What the Susan B. Anthony List wanted to place on the billboard, though, was indeed a lie about a candidate.
Not that I don’t have deep reservations about the Ohio law, and I have to agree that it probably is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. But I also sympathize with motivation behind the law, given the blatant falsehoods that groups like the Susan B. Anthony List propagate in the course of a political campaign and how widely they are spread by the Internet and the ton of cash behind them before the target can even begin to try to counter them.