Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Supreme Court to hear election case

  1. #21
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,914
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Supreme Court to hear election case

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    Personally, I don't believe that the excuse of "politics" should override the slander/libel laws of the country.
    I agree.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  2. #22
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,774

    Re: Supreme Court to hear election case

    Please look at this specific case. It is not about a "politician" making a false statement about an opponent. It is about outside groups and the political statements they wish to make during campaign time.


    from the WSJ
    Ohio says, the state law only prohibits the most egregious lies—those that one knows are false or made with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. Since the Susan B. Anthony List asserts it only plans to make truthful statements, the state argues the group has no grounds to challenge a law that bans only lies.

    The issue before the Supreme Court involves the Susan B. Anthony List’s standing to pursue its lawsuit, and not whether the Ohio false-statement law is itself unconstitutional.
    Last edited by Somerville; 01-11-14 at 08:09 PM.
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Supreme Court to hear election case

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Repeating something doesnt make it true.
    I think he means that legally, libel and slander are not considered (constitutionally] "protected speech," which is correct. They are still forms of speech or press, they just aren't considered a legal right.
    Last edited by Hard Truth; 01-11-14 at 08:54 PM.

  4. #24
    Educator
    USViking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greensboro NC USA
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,111

    Re: Supreme Court to hear election case

    (post #4):
    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    Slander/libel is not speech.
    Wrong and wrong. Slander and libel are both forms of speech. Slander is spoken, libel is published:

    Nolo's Plain-English Law Dictionary: Slander

    (from link):
    (Slander is) An untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media -- for example, over the radio or on TV -- it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience.


    (post #8):
    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    It is a form of fraud.
    (from Nolo):
    Both libel and slander are forms of defamation.

    Perhaps defamation is a type of fraud. If so defamation is a narrower definition, and should be preferred in the example being discussed in this thread.

  5. #25
    Guru
    scatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    02-09-17 @ 10:57 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,721

    Re: Supreme Court to hear election case

    They are both the action of fraud.

  6. #26
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,774

    Re: Supreme Court to hear election case

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    They are both the action of fraud.
    So why are the plaintiffs suing for the right to lie?
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  7. #27
    Guru
    scatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    02-09-17 @ 10:57 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,721

    Re: Supreme Court to hear election case

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    So why are the plaintiffs suing for the right to lie?
    Lying has been addressed by SCOTUS already. See U.S. v. Alvarez.

  8. #28
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    34,784

    Re: Supreme Court to hear election case

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    The group which has filed suit in this instance is basically claiming that political lies are "protected speech"
    Dude... I saw this **** coming. I swear to God I saw it coming. "Lies are protected free speech." I knew this bullcrap was coming down the pipe. I've been saying this to family and friends for the past few years that this was the argument that is brimming.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  9. #29
    Guru
    scatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    02-09-17 @ 10:57 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,721

    Re: Supreme Court to hear election case

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Dude... I saw this **** coming. I swear to God I saw it coming. "Lies are protected free speech." I knew this bullcrap was coming down the pipe. I've been saying this to family and friends for the past few years that this was the argument that is brimming.
    They are. But op is confusing lying with lying to harm another. Lying is protected, the other is not.

  10. #30
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    34,784

    Re: Supreme Court to hear election case

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    They are. But op is confusing lying with lying to harm another. Lying is protected, the other is not.
    This case in the op is about lying to smear and defame... that is basically the definition of slander.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •