As we have witnessed this unprecedented presidential primary season, FactCheck.org has become one of my best friends. Non-partisan and opinion-free, it is a website that focuses on facts -- specifically facts that politicians mis-state or mis-represent. The amount of information that these people get wrong is sometimes staggering, and I encourage everyone to visit the site regularly for some reality.
Yesterday, I read the February 7, 2008, "Ask FactCheck" entry, "Can People Be Sued For False Political Advertising?" -- please read the entry.
In short, is states that political advertisements can claim anything without the basis of fact or fear of legal repercussion. Of course, anyone can sue anyone for a slanderous claim, but the outcome of this lawsuit will arrive long after the election has been decided. This is why nasty political advertising can sink an otherwise strong campaign, especially as the election get closer.
At first glance, one might think that there should be a truth in advertising law when it comes to political ads. It sounds very appealing -- holding politicians (and political groups?) legally accountable for sanctioned advertisements that contain misinformation. I know that it would cause a great deal of problems for many organizations, including the Democratic and Republican parties, who routinely produce false advertising in order to show their opponents in a bad light. It's really disgusting.
But to be honest, as the article points out, this would be very difficult. A couple of states have tried sustaining such a law to no avail. Do you know how hard it is to prove -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- what someone knew to be true or knew to be false? Me either, but it sounds pretty hard.
And aside from the problems enforcing such a law, it seem like it isn't even constitutional. The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Now the argument could be made that the framers could not possibly have conceived of today's political advertisements and such. But couldn't the argument be made that each amendment in the Bill of Rights is antiquated, depending on your point-of-view? The threat of terrorism could make the Fourth Amendment antiquated. The gun problem in this country could make the Second Amendment antiquated. Your enjoyment of alcohol could make the Eighteenth Amendment antiqu....wait...what? Repealed in 1933? Alright, strike that last one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
If a law was successfully crafted,it would just force members of congress that by law are shielded,to carry forth the slander.
I notice that Factcheck.org's disclosure of evidence in the Rezko case stops way back in'06. None of the recent developments reported on CNN are included. Do you think this is because of the ongoing investigation of political influence peddling? I know that the letters written by Barack were publicly revealed by CNN in this case. You can't unring that one. I know I can't be sued for restating what the media reported, so why the silence now? It's got to be a matter of legally jeopardizing an ongoing criminal investigation. It's definitely not a civil matter. It better not be an attempt to cover-up this until after the primaries.
Hey what's up with your coverage of the superdelegate vs. Fla./Mich. debate? That's what's on the front burner these days.
Post a Comment