"don't vote for proper noun because they are evil and here is whole cloth to totally back up our point." It is libel because it is intentionally trying to hurt the target's chances of winning by attacking their reputation.
I don't think this is covered by the current laws unless you lose. Even then, as was pointed out above, still damned hard to prove.
Statement of Intent: This ad paid for by Joe Shit and run on channels 444 and 939193873892-2 is libel against me because it has clear lies and was intended to cause me harm; which it has as I lost the election.
Our slander/libel laws are fine. Look at places like the UK where they're more strict, and you'll see frequent abuse.
To prove slander in the US, you have to prove intent, untruth, and harm. It's not a crime to lie, nor is it a crime to reveal truth in a harmful way (provided you don't violate another unrelated law like HIPPA). The burden of proof is high for a reason.
I were definitely thinking of keeping any strengthening of the laws to political ads only. Broadly lowering the bars would have undesirable effects else where.
How many murders do you think there would be if it were perfectly legal and had no repercussions? Crimes of passion will happen regardless, and punishment there is to minimize the danger violent people pose to others. But planned murder? I'm confident that our laws against it are a deterrent.
I am in agreement, I were speaking toward Scott's varied "laws that don't work" examples that seemed, I apologize for reading into the intent of the list, to argue that if it there are ways to get around it you should not have it in the first place.
More to the point, your arguments fail to address the simple fact that there is absolutely no practical way to limit political speech without either violating the first amendment or creating an unenforceable law.
The courts have found that it is within the rights of the government to limit speech when it is shown to have an harmful effect, e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theatre. This really does not fall within that precedent. But I could see making a case for it. While it is not immediately harmful the one could argue that the harm caused by it is great enough to warrant the limitation. It would be quite a hard battle to get it into law however.
It is not the first time that we have mandated that political speech being special. One has to only look at the radio act of 1927(And more than a few after that), or the Fairness Doctrine, that required equal air time for opposing political candidates.
Cuomo would have had to have sued Paladino in court. If he could have proven intent, harm, and falsehood, he would have won.
I agree, but proving such is quite hard and often not worth it. Hence why, i suppose I should add that I mean for political speech made towards a political campaign, I think it should be looked at strengthening the slander/libel laws.
The courts have found that it is within the rights of the government to limit speech when it is shown to have an harmful effect, e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
It's not just any harm. Fire in a crowded theater refers to clear and present dangers. As in you are saying something that will create an immediately harmful situation, such as a panic. All other sorts of harmful speech are AOK.
It is not the first time that we have mandated that political speech being special. One has to only look at the radio act of 1927(And more than a few after that), or the Fairness Doctrine, that required equal air time for opposing political candidates.
And we got rid of them with good reason. They were unconstitutional bullshit. I mean, think about it. You want to give equal air time? There are thousands of candidates. You going to let every "Rent is Too Damn High" crackpot get up there?
I agree, but proving such is quite hard and often not worth it. Hence why, i suppose I should add that I mean for political speech made towards a political campaign, I think it should be looked at strengthening the slander/libel laws.
Ok, so my opponent makes an ad that says I killed babies. Now I sue him and get twice as much money as I would have before. Nothing else is changed. What exact kind of strengthening do you think will make a difference without having any chilling effects?
And we got rid of them with good reason. They were unconstitutional bullshit. I mean, think about it. You want to give equal air time? There are thousands of candidates. You going to let every "Rent is Too Damn High" crackpot get up there?
If by got rid you mean Ronald Reagen ordered the FCC to stop enforcing said doctrine, then yes we got rid of it. The fairness doctrine as upheld in 1969, by an 8 to 0 vote, by the Supreme Court.
Ok, so my opponent makes an ad that says I killed babies. Now I sue him and get twice as much money as I would have before. Nothing else is changed. What exact kind of strengthening do you think will make a difference without having any chilling effects?
Your opponent also has less money than he had before. So you now have more money to get your message out and he has a lot less than he did before to get his message out. That seems kind of simple doesn't it?
Also, it would have a chilling effect, I never said it wouldn't. That is also part of the point. You make it less desirable to make slanderous/libelous statements about your opponent. It will not stop them, just as laws against murder do not completely stop murder; you will always have the fleeting expletive version of such speech. But you could limit it.
Money drives elections, if it did not then our congressmen and women would not spend so much of their time with lobbyists and fundraisers. It's a fact of our modern political system. If you put in place a monetary dis-incentive to be so outright in your lies then I think you could elevate the level of discourse to actual issue rather than just ad hominem attacks.
They would just factor in the cost of the lawsuit into the cost of the ad. Whoever had more money would still win with the same ads, they would just cost more.
Well the cost of ads is already prohibitive enough that anyone not making a six figure income already isn't going to run, and since my city's council is basically just one social club nowadays I'd say we'd be better off saying political ads, attack and otherwise, should be free to buy, produce, and distribute.
They would just factor in the cost of the lawsuit into the cost of the ad. Whoever had more money would still win with the same ads, they would just cost more.
Thats a great point! Hmmm, it would limit the amount of ads, or cause even more fundraising than ever.
If you just made ads that did not run afoul of the slanderous ads you would be able to run more ads however. Not that they would have the same impact.
I'm not terribly great at math; I wonder how you could model such a system to find out where it would push the balance of power/money between the two candidates without making too many assumptions of the initial variables of starting capital and cost of the ads and the amount of money won through the lawsuits.
They would just factor in the cost of the lawsuit into the cost of the ad. Whoever had more money would still win with the same ads, they would just cost more.
Thats a great point! Hmmm, it would limit the amount of ads, or cause even more fundraising than ever.
If you just made ads that did not run afoul of the slanderous ads you would be able to run more ads however. Not that they would have the same impact.
I'm not terribly great at math; I wonder how you could model such a system to find out where it would push the balance of power/money between the two candidates without making too many assumptions of the initial variables of starting capital and cost of the ads and the amount of money won through the lawsuits.
Also, let's say we are both running for office. You start running slanderous ads. Ok, so now I know I'm going to get a bunch of money from winning a lawsuit against you. But I'm going to lose because of the ads. I'll just start doing the ads as well, and our lawsuits cancel each other out because we are slandering each other.
Also, let's say we are both running for office. You start running slanderous ads. Ok, so now I know I'm going to get a bunch of money from winning a lawsuit against you. But I'm going to lose because of the ads. I'll just start doing the ads as well, and our lawsuits cancel each other out because we are slandering each other.
Without a way to recall the election that is a problem. Recalling the election is infeasible. Because it is slander/libel I don't think that it is an impeachable offense. So little recourse there.
If you take a slightly longer view you could say that the one who does not run slanderous ads would have a larger starting war chest for next election. Assuming you are going to, or even qualify to, running again.
Without the assumption that the guy who lost to the slanderous ads would run again any strengthening of the rules doesn't make much sense.
I suppose if you had the monies go to the party rather than the candidate it could work, but then you are reinforcing the two candidate system.
Without the assumption that the guy who lost to the slanderous ads would run again any strengthening of the rules doesn't make much sense.
Money is never the limiting factor anymore. Any serious candidate with the backing of his party is all but guaranteed effectively unlimited funds if the particular election actually matters.
As for robocalls, just include political and charity calls in the existing ban framework.
Also, this all becomes moot at the Internet replaces TV. If you think trying to regulate TV is difficult, the Internet is effectively impossible on this front.
Also, this all becomes moot at the Internet replaces TV. If you think trying to regulate TV is difficult, the Internet is effectively impossible on this front.
I quite agree; I said earlier that the internet has no need for any of this. The bar of entry is so low that anyone can get on and debunk what anyone else says. I alone, however, can't afford the rates for advertising on national television.
The bar of entry is so low that anyone can get on and debunk what anyone else says.
Few people who need to see debunking would see it. Most older people treat the internet more as push media than pull.
Robocalling and television political ads only exist to reach the old world generation. They work very well on those people, but are like arrows against a battleship for the new technorati.
In a way, the conservative nutjob conspiracy whackos are right. There is a New World Order on the horizon, actively being promoted by their enemies. It's called progress, and its members are all rational and tolerant people. ^_~ The Internet is a driving force of cosmopolitanism and anti-nationalism in the long run.
Robocalling and television political ads only exist to reach the old world generation. They work very well on those people, but are like arrows against a battleship for the new technorati.
In a way, the conservative nutjob conspiracy whackos are right. There is a New World Order on the horizon, actively being promoted by their enemies. It's called progress, and its members are all rational and tolerant people. ^_~ The Internet is a driving force of cosmopolitanism and anti-nationalism in the long run.
I wish I had small sound file that would play after reading this with a dozen people shouting "HUZZAH! HUZZAH! HUZZAH!"
My only issue with this is that we will be quite old when the old guard are finally wiped out. I think that there are more of the baby boomers than there are of us. It may take a while before they go away.
Remember, it are very likely that there are more people alive right now than have ever died in the rest of the history of humanity as a species.
Force Feedback says it best:
Take a look across this vast uncharted battlefield You still don't know your enemy A bunch of pistol freaks with infinite mad skillz And a new found taste for blood
We've made this land You have no place here No right
[Chorus:] This is the world you're in And this is where ours begins A borderless nation of thoughts to replace Your own inexistence in space
We are not sleepers we hide in plain sight If you can't see you cannot fight This is the war between our culture and our hearts With millions born into the cause
Now we're taking it back You don't believe me? Feedback
[Chorus:] This is the world you're in And this is where ours begins A borderless nation of thoughts to replace Your own inexistence in space
[Female vocals:] I don't think you understand These are our shores and our land You are a stranger here And we won't be idle as you interfere
[Spoken Japanese - female]
[Chorus:] This is the world you're in And this is where ours begins A borderless nation of thoughts to replace Your own inexistence in space
Sure you already know That your age was long ago We augment reality online And you hail from ancient times
[Chorus:] This is the world you're in And this is where ours begins A borderless nation of thoughts to replace Your own inexistence in space
I think that there are more of the baby boomers than there are of us
There were 76 million baby boomers at time of birth... So I assume there are not more of them then us.
The US birth rate is down to a little over 2 children per woman. Back then it were around 3.65 children per woman.
There is a pretty neat indent in the population according to age in our age group (This is from 10 years ago population by age group) It's going to be a while before those in power make way for us.
It's not illegal, nor can it be made illegal, to lie.
Err, Not a lawyer here, but isn't that what Perjury is, in a somewhat roundabout way?
Perjury is only if you lie in court under oath. It's also perjury to lie under oaht in other contexts that are effectively courts, such as if you are testifying under oath before congress.
Perjury is only if you lie in court under oath. It's also perjury to lie under oaht in other contexts that are effectively courts, such as if you are testifying under oath before congress.
Yes, but it is still a situation(or, set of situations) Where lying is illegal, isn't it? I'm probably grossly misunderstanding the thing, though - Law isn't my speciality, especially American law.
Yes, but it is still a situation(or, set of situations) Where lying is illegal, isn't it? I'm probably grossly misunderstanding the thing, though - Law isn't my speciality, especially American law.
Free speech works like this.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The important part is "congress shall make no law." That includes the state congresses and the town congresses. It goes all the way down with the turtles.
Now, that doesn't mean you can say whatever you want wherever you want. For example, you go to work and your boss is a Yankees fan. You were a shirt that say "Yankees Suck" to work. Well, it's a private business, and he can just fire your ass for not liking your shirt. Nobody can arrest you for it. They can't make a law that makes it illegal. That doesn't mean there can't be consequences.
Likewise lets say I take a visit to your company and you show me a prototype. I signed an NDA promising I wouldn't tell anyone. Now I go and spill the beans. There's no law that says I couldn't say that. There is a law saying I breached the contract, so they sue my ass for damages.
Let's say I go visit a military contractor and see a secret stealth plane. I spill the beans, even without signing an NDA. Well, now I've created a national security threat. even though all I did was use speech, it's the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater, and maybe even treason.
So I go to court and I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Well, I promised. If I lie, and get caught, that's perjury. Since promising in court counts for real. You're basically obstructing justice by lying. Also, it's not like anybody forced you to do it. We also have the fifth amendment. You can choose between telling the truth, or just shutting up. Nobody can force you to testify under normal circumstances. Weird cases include things like if they bargain with you and grant you immunity. If you accept the bargain, you have to go through with it.
Comments
It is not the first time that we have mandated that political speech being special. One has to only look at the radio act of 1927(And more than a few after that), or the Fairness Doctrine, that required equal air time for opposing political candidates. I agree, but proving such is quite hard and often not worth it. Hence why, i suppose I should add that I mean for political speech made towards a political campaign, I think it should be looked at strengthening the slander/libel laws.
Also, it would have a chilling effect, I never said it wouldn't. That is also part of the point. You make it less desirable to make slanderous/libelous statements about your opponent. It will not stop them, just as laws against murder do not completely stop murder; you will always have the fleeting expletive version of such speech. But you could limit it.
Money drives elections, if it did not then our congressmen and women would not spend so much of their time with lobbyists and fundraisers. It's a fact of our modern political system. If you put in place a monetary dis-incentive to be so outright in your lies then I think you could elevate the level of discourse to actual issue rather than just ad hominem attacks.
If you just made ads that did not run afoul of the slanderous ads you would be able to run more ads however. Not that they would have the same impact.
I'm not terribly great at math; I wonder how you could model such a system to find out where it would push the balance of power/money between the two candidates without making too many assumptions of the initial variables of starting capital and cost of the ads and the amount of money won through the lawsuits.
If you take a slightly longer view you could say that the one who does not run slanderous ads would have a larger starting war chest for next election. Assuming you are going to, or even qualify to, running again.
Without the assumption that the guy who lost to the slanderous ads would run again any strengthening of the rules doesn't make much sense.
I suppose if you had the monies go to the party rather than the candidate it could work, but then you are reinforcing the two candidate system.
As for robocalls, just include political and charity calls in the existing ban framework.
Also, this all becomes moot at the Internet replaces TV. If you think trying to regulate TV is difficult, the Internet is effectively impossible on this front.
Robocalling and television political ads only exist to reach the old world generation. They work very well on those people, but are like arrows against a battleship for the new technorati.
In a way, the conservative nutjob conspiracy whackos are right. There is a New World Order on the horizon, actively being promoted by their enemies. It's called progress, and its members are all rational and tolerant people. ^_~ The Internet is a driving force of cosmopolitanism and anti-nationalism in the long run.
My only issue with this is that we will be quite old when the old guard are finally wiped out. I think that there are more of the baby boomers than there are of us. It may take a while before they go away.
Force Feedback says it best:
Take a look across this vast uncharted battlefield
You still don't know your enemy
A bunch of pistol freaks with infinite mad skillz
And a new found taste for blood
We've made this land
You have no place here
No right
[Chorus:]
This is the world you're in
And this is where ours begins
A borderless nation of thoughts to replace
Your own inexistence in space
We are not sleepers we hide in plain sight
If you can't see you cannot fight
This is the war between our culture and our hearts
With millions born into the cause
Now we're taking it back
You don't believe me?
Feedback
[Chorus:]
This is the world you're in
And this is where ours begins
A borderless nation of thoughts to replace
Your own inexistence in space
[Female vocals:]
I don't think you understand
These are our shores and our land
You are a stranger here
And we won't be idle as you interfere
[Spoken Japanese - female]
[Chorus:]
This is the world you're in
And this is where ours begins
A borderless nation of thoughts to replace
Your own inexistence in space
Sure you already know
That your age was long ago
We augment reality online
And you hail from ancient times
[Chorus:]
This is the world you're in
And this is where ours begins
A borderless nation of thoughts to replace
Your own inexistence in space
There is a pretty neat indent in the population according to age in our age group (This is from 10 years ago population by age group) It's going to be a while before those in power make way for us.
Now, that doesn't mean you can say whatever you want wherever you want. For example, you go to work and your boss is a Yankees fan. You were a shirt that say "Yankees Suck" to work. Well, it's a private business, and he can just fire your ass for not liking your shirt. Nobody can arrest you for it. They can't make a law that makes it illegal. That doesn't mean there can't be consequences.
Likewise lets say I take a visit to your company and you show me a prototype. I signed an NDA promising I wouldn't tell anyone. Now I go and spill the beans. There's no law that says I couldn't say that. There is a law saying I breached the contract, so they sue my ass for damages.
Let's say I go visit a military contractor and see a secret stealth plane. I spill the beans, even without signing an NDA. Well, now I've created a national security threat. even though all I did was use speech, it's the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater, and maybe even treason.
So I go to court and I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Well, I promised. If I lie, and get caught, that's perjury. Since promising in court counts for real. You're basically obstructing justice by lying. Also, it's not like anybody forced you to do it. We also have the fifth amendment. You can choose between telling the truth, or just shutting up. Nobody can force you to testify under normal circumstances. Weird cases include things like if they bargain with you and grant you immunity. If you accept the bargain, you have to go through with it.