Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Woodland Park Skatepark Breaks... | Where Am I? »

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Campaign Lies Are Protected by the Constitution

posted by on October 4 at 13:36 PM

So says a “sharply divided state Supreme Court”…

OLYMPIA, Wash. — A sharply divided state Supreme Court has ruled that a law that bars political candidates from deliberately making false statements about their opponents violates the First Amendment right of free speech…

Full story here.

(Thanks for the tip, Will.)

RSS icon Comments

1

It's just as well. Trying to keep politicians from lying is like trying to hold back the tide.

Posted by Gitai | October 4, 2007 1:50 PM
2

I know. Heck, if there's anything the last seven years have taught me is that the American public is extremely gullible.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 4, 2007 2:04 PM
3

Goddamn! That's so wrong.

Isn't deliberately lying about an opposing candidate potentially as harmful to the public as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre (which isn't protected free speech)?

Posted by Bauhaus | October 4, 2007 2:13 PM
4

Bauhaus: C'mon. If we can pass a law that makes lying illegal, then there is *nothing* that the government can't outlaw. We thought sodomy laws were bad: I can't wait until the anti-blasphemy laws kick in!
The right to speech includes the right to lie. It has to. Otherwise, it's a content-based restriction on speech, and that opens the door to a host of repressive laws.

Posted by torrentprime | October 4, 2007 2:20 PM
5

What torrentprime said.

Posted by ivan | October 4, 2007 2:23 PM
6

I don't want any laws prohibiting speech either, torrent, but I sure as hell hate the idea of intentional lies being protected free speech. There's a difference. Suppose I call someone a murderous pedophile whom I know isn't, shouldn't that be actionable? Or should it be protected under the 1st amendment?

Posted by Bauhaus | October 4, 2007 2:27 PM
7

It's not the lying that's the problem, it's the idiotic mouth-breathers who believe the lies that are the problem.

Posted by Original Andrew | October 4, 2007 2:38 PM
8

What is truth?

Posted by Toby | October 4, 2007 2:44 PM
9

Unintentional lying, I would think, should be protected by First Amendment rights, but intentional lying is dangerous, and there should be limits in place to curb it. As to Brauhaus' comment, that's called slander, and is in fact illegal. So I guess it depends on what the lie is used for, though I still say that intentionally lying to serve your ideology should be a punishable offense. Sure, it'd be nice if people would be more skeptical about what people say, Andrew, but the truth is people aren't going to do that most of the time, because they either a)don't give a shit, and figure that if someone's willing to say it, then it must be true, or b)have more important things to do with their time than fact-check everything a politician said.

Posted by Annon | October 4, 2007 2:49 PM
10

We will build light rail on time and under budget. We will not impose more sales taxes after the vote to pay for the 520 bridge cost overruns. The work RTID would pay for on Mercer Street is not a beautification project for Vulcan and its lessees (MSFT and Amazon.com). The new highways east of the lake will reduce GHG emisssions. Everyone can handle piles more sales taxes forever. Sims retracted his opposition. The new gas tax deficit forecasts are not a reason to withhold some of your capacity to pay taxes from us! Trust us.

Posted by Vote for Roads and Transit | October 4, 2007 3:03 PM
11

@10 - LOL. Just because it's ok to lie about RTID/ST2 doesn't mean you have to ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 4, 2007 3:57 PM
12

Interesting ruling, and one that I have a hard time reconciling with the State Supreme Court upholding the City of Seattle's ability to enforce a rule that you can't talk about your opponent at all - truthful or not, and they have the power of prior restraint - in a Voter's Guide statement (and Grant Cogswell, if you're reading this, thanks for being the plaintiff in that case!).

Posted by Mr. X | October 4, 2007 9:57 PM
13

Bauhaus and Annon, whom do you trust to decide on your behalf what is a lie and what is not? In the case of the invalidate law, it was a board appointed by the governor.

The ruling wasn't about protecting lies, it was about whether the government should be in the position of deciding what is truth.

Anyone who truly wants to deceive will find a way to do so, law or no law. All the invalidated law did was allow fines to be imposed on anyone who ran afoul of the official version of truth, whether or not they believed what they were saying.

Posted by Emma | October 6, 2007 3:01 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).