Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: Supreme Court to hear election case

  1. #31
    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
    This case in the op is about lying to smear and defame... that is basically the definition of slander.
    Yeah, which has been held as unconstitutional for quite some time. They must want to look at the PAC aspect now, or might go further since public officials have almost no way to prove the libel/slander aspect.

  2. #32
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    35,099

    Re: Supreme Court to hear election case

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    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
    Excellent. We need MOAR outside influences on elections... as if the SCOTUS allowing endless outside money flow into politics wasn't enough. Now that endless money will be able to be used to lie endlessly and obfuscate and confuse the electorate rather than inform the public. So much for better government.
    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.

  3. #33
    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 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.
    Per legislation and case law, lies are protected speech unless they qualify as libel, slander, fraud or false advertising.

  4. #34
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    35,099

    Re: Supreme Court to hear election case

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    Per legislation and case law, lies are protected speech unless they qualify as libel, slander, fraud or false advertising.
    Well I think this case is about being able to legally libel/slander candidates with false advertising.
    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.

  5. #35
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: Supreme Court to hear election case

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    This is one that should inspire some debate - it is what we are here for, amirite?



    The group which has filed suit in this instance is basically claiming that political lies are "protected speech"

    more from Reuters on the case
    I appreciate we're talking about politicians and those who support/promote them, but I'd be embarrassed to take a case to court because I wanted the unfettered ability to make "knowingly false statements, with malice". Don't politicians already have pretty terrible reputations for honesty and credibility as it is?
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  6. #36
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Supreme Court to hear election case

    And now for the side of the story ignored, the other side of the story.

    Congressman Steve Driehaus (D, OH-01) is attempting to send a Catholic pro-life leader to jail for opinions he himself held for months prior to suddenly voting for the same bill he opposed.

    The President of the Susan B. Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser, faces possible prison time for asserting on a billboard in Cincinnati that Rep. Driehaus voted for taxpayer-funded abortion when he voted for the health care bill.
    Ohio Rep. Steve Driehaus Relies on Double Talk on Abortion Funding, ObamaCare

    Basically this comes down to a billboard that was going to go up saying a congressman was voting for tax pay funded abortion, he claims that wasn't what HE was voting for, and thus it was a "LIE".

    Now, you guys can play the "oh people want the right to LIE!!" but that's not really what's at stake here.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  7. #37
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Supreme Court to hear election case

    Oh and if the WSJ is right, the issue is about the groups standing to bring suit, not the law itself.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  8. #38
    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

    If the claim is true then libel/slander is not the problem.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

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