@Happy Valley Heretic:In 2005 the New York Times reported that
"after an appellate court overturned a ruling in favor of Ms. Akre, the
couple paid their former employer at least $150,000 to cover legal fees.
@Happy Valley Heretic:What was that false statement?Give
some examples of false statements.
I don't like this idea. While it would be great to have politicians tell
the truth, this law is nothing more than a tool to eliminate your competitor.
It wouldn't be hard to dig up a few tidbits on your opponent and get them
arrested and tossed out.To "GaryO" actually, we would lose
the most liberal politicians.For example Harry Reid claimed that
Romney had not filed taxes for years. The facts were already out there showing
that he had.Obama claimed that he called Benghazi a terrorist act
only a few days after it occured. The transcripts state otherwise. Obama
claimed that Romney was an elitist, yet when you look into Romney's
character he was more grounded with the middleclass than Obama could ever hope
to be.The point I am making is that the most powerful liberals would
be thrown in jail, and we would have to build new jails just to house them.
HVH,thank you for the documentation. now will you also tell us about how
NBC news lied in their report about Chevy trucks blowing up (maybe it was Ford,
I don't exactly remember)? remember how they had to publicly apologize on
air for their lies and distortions, how they had to admit what they did to get
the truck to blow up with a side collision because they could not get to explode
with just impact as they accused? I am not trying to excuse Fox, but NBC is
much worse.GaryO,where is there a right-leaning supreme court?
we certainly do not have one here. Certainly not the SCOTUS
The Democrats would come out ahead if a law banned false statements about
opposition candidates.After all, much of what Republicans believe is
completely false, and lies about Democrats are accepted as gospel.If
Republicans were compelled to not lie about Democrats, they would lose their
very reason for being.There is no way a Right-leaning supreme court
would pass a law that robs Republicans of their primary weapon.
@Mountainman: On August 18, 2000, journalist Jane Akre won $425,000 in a court
ruling where she charged she was pressured by Fox News management and lawyers to
air what she knew and documented to be false information. In
February 2003, Fox appealed the decision and an appellate court and had it
overturned. Fox lawyers argued it was their first amendment right to report
false information. In a six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals decided
the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,”
not a “law, rule, or regulation.”
Sergio. What lies have you heard on Fox news? Please give us specific examples
to back up your assertion.
It would put Fox News out of business .
MountanmanI agree, but let's face it. Lies have been told
about Democrats too. I think it should be illegal to lie about anybody. If
that were the case, I do believe people like Romney would come out best though,
so it does make one wonder if Democrats would want this law, as it would take
away one of their best political tools to beat Republicans.
If the SCOTUS makes it illegal for politicians to lie then what will Democrats
do to win elections? Remember the lies they told about Romney, ACA, IRS abuses,
fast and furious, Benghazi, NSA, the second amendment, etc., etc., etc.
Contracts made in the U.S. are supposed to be the TRUTH, say for instance with
loans made and the exact numbers to protect the consumer. What is
the difference here? The ACA should be voided when it was based on fraudulent
information to veil the TRUTH. We have been silent on the injustice of this too
long. Something needs to be done, and soon. Politicians should be
held to a standard of truth. Untruths are damaging and unnecessary. Freedom of
speech is not warranted when lies slander, and defamation of character is
evident. Too much of that is acceptable these days, and needs to be
It will be interesting to see how the court rules.I find it funny
that the quotes the Cato Institute in the brief ridiculing the law would use
quotes FROM candidates rather than untruths ABOUT candidates - and the quote
from Nixon was not when he was a candidate. Their quotes were totally out of
place and missed the point.If truth were required in talking about
your opponents, the dems will need to re-tool their entire campaign strategy and
the MSM will need to reqork their entire business model.Too bad
there is so much dishonesty that the law was even enacted.
This looks like a job, for Superman!TRUTH, Justice, and the American
I don't feel you should be able to lie about your competitor just to get
votes. Myself as well as many others, really do want to elect the person that we
feel would represent us best, but it's really hard to know because both
sides always lie!
Free speech aside, if a movie star can sue a publication for false statements,
and win, then why not a politician? Many statements about politicians are
merely a points of view. However, if a politician were accused of a crime they
didn't commit, say selling drugs, and were accused of such with no evidence
that would hold up in court, then it would seem that the liable, slander laws
should be in play. Why would a politican not have such protection when even
movie stars and other public figures have them?