:-)

Heheh ... indeed! Maybe it's true what they say about publicity ...

-David

Granted, all of that. But having courts officially declare that political lies ARE lies would do wonders for getting us closer to operating on one set of facts. We have politicians and political parties touting thoroughly discredited lies for DECADES, with double-digit percentages of the population still believing them! At the very least we'd inhibit the media from validating lies as "opinion."

Also I think billionaires financing propaganda campaigns would think twice if they thought that there was ANY chance they might have to face some irate jury's damages award. "Tort reform" being the number one issue among those who most think they might profit from lies.

The prospect of facing real penalties does indeed inhibit behaviors. Big business and the wealthy are far more afraid of juries than they are of the Attorney General. And with good reason. Juries are much harder for them to control. And, unlike the AG, are uninhibited in prosecuting misbehavior.

I agree, it won't solve our problems, but I think it would moderate them. Anything that even occasionally works is better than an unrestrained license to commit fraud. Look at climate change denial for example. The damage, the danger, political lies pose to us is incalculable. Not just temporarily inconvenient, or destructive. Some may actually be irrevocably suicidal.

First, parlaimentary system, control of the executive and legislative is inextricably linked. While a far more majoritarian system, the problems of divided government do not plague them in the same way as they do us. If you control the parlaiment in britain, you literally get to pick the prime minister. So the current Obama situation could never be replicated in britain.

Also, a much more dominant publically financed media and news orgnaization, the bbc. It's hard to underemphasize how operating from the same set of public facts reduces political partisanship. Britain has that, regardless of it's libel laws, we don't.

So what I'm saying is that yes lies aren't great, but stricter libel and slander laws will not be a cure all, there are a lot of inter-related factors that go into anything.

They ignored the constitution, lied, and effectively rewrote the constitution. And they've been lying, rewriting, and giving themselves more power ever since. And all through simply lying about what the constitution says, and what is, and is not, constitutional.

NOTHING is more dangerous to our democracy than political lies.

I think political lies are, and always have been, the single biggest threat to this country and to democracy. The first amendment exists because democratic institutions effecting self-rule using a Republican government are impossible if the voting public are uninformed or misinformed.

Nearly every violation of individual rights in this nation's history, (and the list is a long one; slavery, Indian wars, union busting, pas and present, prohibitions, alcohol and drugs, voter suppression, past and present, all depended on gaining popular support through campaigns of demonstrable lies.

Political lies simply are not protected political opinions. The are statements crafted solely to inhibit and, if possible, silence the political speech of others, and to prevent voters from making informed choices at the ballot box.

As I said, you can't always prove someone isn't lying. But in the most egregious cases you likely can prove someone is lying. Britains enforcement of libel and slander haven't eliminated political lying but its certainly inhibited it. You'd never see the pervasive, total fabrications, airing nationally 24/7 from dozens of sources, even AFTER they've been thoroughly discredited. (ACORN? Birthers? Benghazi?, PPACA?) Practically the entire Republican agenda the last five years, and nearly all of right-wing media for decades, relies almost exclusively on lying to misinform, mislead, confuse, and deceive voters.

Enforcing effective libel and slander laws may not eliminate any problems but it will curb many of them. Britain also demonstrably refutes the supposition that political speech simply cannot be policed without inevitable massive partisan corruption. While we've demonstrably got massive partisan corruption because we lack enforceable slander and libel laws.

So, yes, I think it would help. Our system actually does work. The wealthy, the special interests, have to use their money to buy politicians indirectly by buying votes. Paying for efforts to manipulate voters in order to control elected officials.

I doubt I'd have a problem with that if they were restricted to truthful campaigns. Or, at least, restricted to truthful campaigns as much as possible. Persuading voters is what the system is all about. But there's a difference between persuasion and manipulation. Its the manipulation of voters that the first amendment is designed to prevent. The first amendment is NOT intended to ENABLE voter manipulation.

Fraud is not just "salesmanship." Lying isn't just "opinion." Our courts pretending to be dumb, deaf, and blind to first amendment abuses doesn't "protect" anyone or anything. Rather they're enablers.--In fact SCOTUS as quite a track record of "interpreting" constitutional provisions into impotency. Their gutting of the fifteenth amendment in order to enable the latest round of voter suppression laws being the most egregious recent example. In fact its a twofer! As their new "interpretation" of section 2, that SCOTUS, not Congress, gets to decide whether legislation is "appropriate" also guts article 1, since the decision makes SCOTUS a legislative branch whose authority to write new law SUPPERCEDES that of Congress! SCOTUS now gets to write new law, throwing out out laws passed by Congress, not because they're unconstitutional by because SCOTUS considers them no longer "appropriate!"--Don't get me started!!

Suffice to say I disagree that all speech is "protected" because I believe the constitution means what it says, not what SCOTUS says. I've no problem with reasonable interpretations of the constitution. (The Air Force is part of the Army mandated by the constitution even though planes hadn't been invented when it was written, for example.)

But "interpreting" constitutional political speech protections to mean government cannot protect political speech since that would require trials, such as those expressly mandated by the constitution as the means of deciding legal disputes, because SCOTUS has decided the system designed by the constitution to decide issues isn't acceptable, isn't "interpreting" its "rewriting." (In direct defiance of yet ANOTHER constitutional provision, Article 5.)--Unlike the rest of America, I've a problem with that.

Interesting points, many of which I agree with. But I have a question for you. How do you think the US would be different (better or worse) if we had much stricter libel/slander laws, as in Britain. Do you think it would help things or hurt things? Just curious.

David -

Ouch. Well, there are plenty of districts out there that aren't known for ANYthing, good or bad. I guess there's that...

:-)

-CW

In probably the least interesting comment ever, what really strikes me about this case is how long it's taken to get to the Supreme Court.

Drihaus hasn't been our representative for more than 4 years.

Anyhoo ... we're making national news! Maybe now we'll be known for something other than Pete Rose, Marge Schott, Mapplethorpe, and/or race riots!

-David

It would directly harm no one if they could not express their political views. Unlike the others, the first amendment isn't about protecting the individual's rights, its about protecting democratic institutions, protecting the populations rights. Its our democracy, our collective freedom, our ability to govern ourselves, that that the first amendment protects. Not the rights of individuals to say anything they please.

We, as voters selecting representatives to represent us in a democratic process, need to be able to make informed choices. Suppressing political speech may deny us the ability to do that.--And so do political lies, which is why the popular misconceptions about the first amendment, due to the courts unwillingness to do a thankless, though necessary task, is counterproductive and unconstitutional.

The Fox News "fair and balanced" approach to the first amendment is no more fair and balanced when it comes to constitutional rights than it is with news. Treating everything equally doesn't guarantee either fairness or balance. It can, in fact, ensure that there is neither fairness nor balance simply by suggesting that two disparate things equate. There simply is no substitute for individual judgment made on the merits nor any way to avoid making individual judgments. Life just isn't that simple--or easy.

The Bill of Rights seeks to protect people from government abuses of power. Particularly abuses that would inhibit free democratic expression in elections. But while it may not be possible to prove a statement is not a lie. It certainly may be possible to prove one is a lie.

The first amendment is not a blank check. Unconditionally "protecting" someone's "right" to lie politically uses the power of the state to inhibit the political speech of the person who is the subject of the lie.

The courts self-bestowed position as ultimate arbiter constitutional disputes is supposedly to resolve constitutional conflicts. Their refusal to touch issues of slander and libel by hiding behind the first amendment is a large part of why our politicians are so susceptible to the influence of money. It isn't politicians being bribed that's the problem. Its politicians being coerced. Because deep-pocketed special interests can and will fund attacks on politicians unconstrained by any need to be truthful if the politician doesn't sufficiently placate them.

The court's refusal to protect the first amendment rights of the slandered and libeled prevents the government from inhibiting free political expression, while guaranteeing that anyone else can. The first amendment is interpreted so broadly its its all but useless. Our politicians are prohibited from using statutes to inhibit speech, they have to firm PACs and Superpacs instead!

The court isn't serving the constitution, the country, or democracy. Its covering its own ass. Actually doing its job would indeed make it a "truth commission. The illusion of unbiased nonpartisan objectivity would be much harder to maintain because the court itself would constantly be under attack as partisan no matter how it rules.--Unless it "courageously" simply refuses to do its job. Which is exactly what its always done.

There's no other constitutional individual "right" that's so "protected" that the amount of harm you do others is irrelevant. So "protected" that however compelling the governments legitimate interest may be is irrelevant. So "protected" that any victims simply have no rights, as the "rights" of those who abuse their rights always supersedes the "rights" of victims. The courts even go so far as to outlaw anyone elses attempts to fairly protect the rights of people slandered and libeled.

Our courts have no difficulty understanding every other provision of the constitution is about curbing and preventing government abuse of power, not its use of power. That one persons exercise of their rights may violate those of another. That compelling state interests may necessitate government infringement on individual rights.--But not when it comes to the First! When it comes to the First Amendment everyone in America joins our conservative right-wingers in simply refusing to accept reality.

The Fist Amendment is one of our greatest achievements. The way we "protect" it is why instead of safeguarding political speech well-healed individuals and groups use the first amendment to silence political speech. Why instead of having a government "for the people" we have one for the special interests. One wholly indifferent to what the people want. Because the special interests get to control speech, and electoral outcomes, simply by lying, to discredit and silence the speech of others.

First of all, welcome to the site. Or maybe "welcome to the comments area"?

:-)

Your first comment was held for moderation, but you should now be able to post comments instantly. Just don't use more than one link in each comment, as multilink comments are automatically held for moderation (to cut down on comment spam).

As for your question, I think that legally a politician would be able to sue for defamation (slander, libel), but that practically, it wouldn't work.

I say this for two reasons. The first is that judges would likely not want to rule on what is, at heart, a political issue. It's a separation of powers problem, in other words -- the judiciary tends to shy away from purely political questions, instead preferring the ballot box to work out such issues.

The second is that the public likely wouldn't look kindly on a politician who brought such a lawsuit. Lawsuits take a long time, so the suit wouldn't likely be heard until after the election. So it'd either be seen as "being a bad winner" (if the winner of the election was suing) or "sour grapes" (if the loser was suing). This is likely why politicians almost never take this route.

Of course, back in the 1800s, there was another answer -- challenge your opponent to a duel. But, of course, that's not really an answer today.

Anyway, once again, welcome to the site.

-CW

I'm curious, is it possible to sue a campaign or entity for political lies? You can sue for defamation of character, but can you sue for defamation of political campaign? If not, might such a thing offer a method to minimize ads that are at least obviously factually inaccurate? Perhaps limit the punishment to removing the ad and issuing a retraction in the same or similar media, but only if it can be proven that said ad made statements that were objectively false. I would think that this would also limit the government's influence on such decisions by leaving the burden of both bringing the suit and providing proof on the party being affected.

Any thoughts?

Yep. The cure for BS is harsh sunlight, and lots of political speech denouncing it.

:-)

-CW

But yah, ultimately people are allowed to say what they want. It's up to us, the body politic, to call them on their bs.

So I read your title, yes, they are constitutional, but that's not really the point.

Let's see where I stand afterwards.