PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court: Campaign lies (about foes) are protected free speech



darin
10-04-2007, 05:32 PM
The Democrats will LOVE this!





OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - 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.

In a 5-4 ruling, the high court affirmed a state Court of Appeals ruling that overturned the law. The measure was enacted by the Legislature in 1999, a year after a similar ban on false statements involving initiatives and other ballot measures was thrown out by the state Supreme Court.

State Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch, invoked the law in 2002 after his Green Party challenger, Marilou Rickert, distributed a flier that asserted Sheldon voted to shut down a state institution in his district. In fact, he voted against a budget that included closure of the Mission Creek youth camp, although critics said he didn't do enough to support the facility.

He filed a complaint with the state Public Disclosure Commission, which investigated and imposed the maximum fine, $1,000. By then, Sheldon had easily won re-election. The commission action was upheld in Superior Court, but overturned by the appeals bench.

The Supreme Court majority said the new law "like its predecessor, is unconstitutional on its face."

"The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment," Justice James Johnson wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Charles Johnson, Richard Sanders and Susan Owens.

Chief Justice Gerry Alexander joined the majority as well, but in a separate concurrence. He wrote that, "the majority goes too far in concluding that any government censorship of political speech would run afoul of the United States and Washington constitutions," but agreed that the law was unconstitutional because it was overbroad.

The dissent called the majority decision "an invitation to lie with impunity."

"The majority opinion advances the efforts of those who would turn political campaigns into contests of the best stratagems of lies and deceit, to the end that honest discourse and honest candidates are lost in the maelstrom," Justice Barbara Madsen wrote in the dissent, joined by Justices Tom Chambers, Mary Fairhurst and Bobbe Bridge.

The justices disagreed over the interpretation of a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, in which the court found a public official claiming libel must prove that the libel was published with "actual malice."

The majority said that under that ruling, only defamatory statements are not constitutionally protected speech, and that the new law does not require proof of the defamatory nature of the prohibited statements. Thus, the current law "extends to protected political speech and strict scrutiny must apply."

The majority opinion noted that another U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Time Inc. v. Hill, indicated that false statements about private individuals made with actual malice, but which are not defamatory, may not be protected speech.

"However, the court has not held that false statements about public figures made with actual malice, but which are not defamatory, are devoid of all constitutional protection," the opinion said.

More:

http://www.komotv.com/news/10234451.html

Dilloduck
10-04-2007, 05:34 PM
The Democrats will LOVE this!

We've done it !!!! Lying is legal. About time we threw out that religious crap.

:laugh2:

Abbey Marie
10-04-2007, 05:35 PM
May the best liar win!

Dilloduck
10-04-2007, 05:40 PM
Can only politicians lie legally ?? What a rip off !!!:laugh2:

JohnDoe
10-04-2007, 05:49 PM
I think this stinks to high heaven and is a bad call by the Supremes...

I guess I do not understand where slander and for the lack of better words, bearing false witness, comes in?

and if we can not get the TRUTH regarding the people that are going to represent us or from the NEWS, (which they also ruled that Fox could lie and all news can lie imo, previous to this....) then how can we make informed decisions???

I am sure I must be missing something? yes, the 1st amendment....but still.... :(

PostmodernProphet
10-04-2007, 06:39 PM
and is a bad call by the Supremes...


bear in mind this is one of the sub-Supremes.....a state supreme court....this decision only applies in Washington......

JohnDoe
10-04-2007, 06:45 PM
bear in mind this is one of the sub-Supremes.....a state supreme court....this decision only applies in Washington......
good point Post on them being sub supremes.... :)

actsnoblemartin
10-04-2007, 08:52 PM
bullcrap, you shouldnt be able to lie on purpose, thats bullcrap, the supreme court is full of crap.


We've done it !!!! Lying is legal. About time we threw out that religious crap.

:laugh2:

truthmatters
10-04-2007, 08:58 PM
Its the washington state SC. Hopefully the big guns will take it on.

5stringJeff
10-05-2007, 07:15 AM
Ridiculous. Slander is not, and should not be, protected speech.

red states rule
10-05-2007, 07:24 AM
I think this stinks to high heaven and is a bad call by the Supremes...

I guess I do not understand where slander and for the lack of better words, bearing false witness, comes in?

and if we can not get the TRUTH regarding the people that are going to represent us or from the NEWS, (which they also ruled that Fox could lie and all news can lie imo, previous to this....) then how can we make informed decisions???

I am sure I must be missing something? yes, the 1st amendment....but still.... :(

Why are you so upset? This means Hillary can continue doing what she has been doing and it is protected

As far as Fox News, libs hate Fox News since they do not give only the liberal medias view of the days events - but both sides of the issue