• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court to hear election case

Somerville

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,856
Reaction score
8,334
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
This is one that should inspire some debate - it is what we are here for, amirite?

Supreme Court to hear election case

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a Cincinnati case that could decide whether it is constitutional for Ohio election law to prohibit false statements made with malice during an election campaign.
Although the justices have yet to schedule oral arguments on the Ohio law, by accepting the case Friday they rejected arguments by Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine that there was no reason for the high court to review two lower federal courts which had dismissed the lawsuit.

“I think this is further evidence that the court sees serious problems with state laws that regulate electoral speech,’’ said Paul Sherman, an attorney for the Virginia-based Institute for Justice, which urged the justices to hear the case. “They have recently shown a lot of hostility to these kinds of laws and with very good reason.’’
Click to expand...

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

more from Reuters on the case
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear an appeal by two conservative groups that assert that an Ohio law that imposes penalties for making knowingly false statements about political candidates violates their right to free speech.

The groups, Susan B. Anthony List and the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes, say that the possibility that the Ohio statute would be enforced against them deterred them from issuing statements during the 2010 election campaign criticizing a Democratic congressman for supporting President Barack Obama's healthcare law.
Click to expand...
 
Slander/libel is not speech.

But, lying, non-slander/libel speech is a form of free speech.
 
scatt said:
Slander/libel is not speech.

But, lying, non-slander/libel speech is a form of free speech.
Click to expand...

In your crazy opinion eating a burger is speech.

Slandering someone can be a criminal offense and simply screaming "free speech" wont help you there.

Where I grew up there was a person who people slanderd about that he was a drug dealer, he took the worst of them to court and won.

I have a right to prosecute scumbags who have nothing better to do than slander about me by spreading lies that could harm me and my image.
 
Slander/libel is not speech.
 
Good God...who would accuse any politician in America of lying at anytime? :shock: That'd be down-right UNAMERICAN!

The above is what politicians want...never to be accused. In other words, accusations...should be against the law. Not the lying.
 
I'm not convinced that a special law for elections and politicians is necessary, and I haven't read the text of the law, but my impression of the law from the article is that it is consistent with existing case law regarding the constitutionality of slander/libel laws and should be upheld.
 
Personally, I don't believe that the excuse of "politics" should override the slander/libel laws of the country. :shrug:
 
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a Cincinnati case that could decide whether it is constitutional for Ohio election law to prohibit false statements made with malice during an election campaign.
Click to expand...

Is this for real? Candidates want to be able to not just lie, but maliciously lie?
 
Somerville said:
care to provide a case citation for your claim
Click to expand...

Given that you are a "socialist," Schenck v. U.S. should be known to you. At some point speech turns into action and it is no longer speech.
 
scatt said:
Given that you are a "socialist," Schenck v. U.S. should be known to you. At some point speech turns into action and it is no longer speech.
Click to expand...

What does a economic position have to do with a civil right?
 
scatt said:
The recent desire to pretend socialism is economic only is to be ignored.
Click to expand...

:lamo
To argue that socialism is more than an economic system is sheer ignorance.
 
Somerville said:
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
Click to expand...

False statements made with malice. I would love to see political campaigns be centered around honest debate of which candidate/s have the best ideas and solutions to problems. I get sick and tired of the political commercials we have today, the mud slinging, the half truths, things taken out of context. To me these things should have no place in a political campaign, but everyone uses them to the max. The idea is to get the electorate to vote against the other guy, not for you.

Politicians make false statements and accusations all the time. They knowing lie all the time. But for most I think it is not out of malice, it is just to make the other guy look as bad as possible. To paint him like the devil reincarnated. They do this to win elections and after they won, the winner expects the loser to smile and have him and his party to work with you when you attempt to govern. Perhaps this is why we have so much animosity between parties today in Washington.

But I am sure the framers and founding fathers would have no objections if one candidate called the other a skunk. But I do think they would object to having one candidate calling the other a murderer or say the other candidate rape children and killed old women without proof. I think the word malice is a good restraint on this law. I hope the SCOTUS find this law constitutional, but I doubt that they will.
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
Repeating something doesnt make it true.
Click to expand...

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:
(post #4):
scatt said:
Slander/libel is not speech.
Click to expand...
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):
scatt said:
It is a form of fraud.
Click to expand...

(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.
 
They are both the action of fraud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom