• 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 said:
The group which has filed suit in this instance is basically claiming that political lies are "protected speech"
Click to expand...

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.
 
poweRob said:
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.
Click to expand...

They are. But op is confusing lying with lying to harm another. Lying is protected, the other is not.
 
scatt said:
They are. But op is confusing lying with lying to harm another. Lying is protected, the other is not.
Click to expand...

This case in the op is about lying to smear and defame... that is basically the definition of slander.
 
poweRob said:
This case in the op is about lying to smear and defame... that is basically the definition of slander.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Somerville said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
poweRob said:
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.
Click to expand...

Per legislation and case law, lies are protected speech unless they qualify as libel, slander, fraud or false advertising.
 
Hard Truth said:
Per legislation and case law, lies are protected speech unless they qualify as libel, slander, fraud or false advertising.
Click to expand...

Well I think this case is about being able to legally libel/slander candidates with false advertising.
 
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...

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Oh and if the WSJ is right, the issue is about the groups standing to bring suit, not the law itself.
 
If the claim is true then libel/slander is not the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom