Full Version: No More Political Lies
QUOTE
Colorado Revised Statute 1-13-109(2)(a) establishes that it is a Class 2 misdemeanor for any person to
"... recklessly make, publish, broadcast, or circulate or cause to be made, published, broadcasted or circulated in any letter, circular, advertisement, or poster or any other communication any false statement designed to affect the vote on any issue submitted to the electors at any election or relating to any candidate for election to public office."
"... recklessly make, publish, broadcast, or circulate or cause to be made, published, broadcasted or circulated in any letter, circular, advertisement, or poster or any other communication any false statement designed to affect the vote on any issue submitted to the electors at any election or relating to any candidate for election to public office."
Source
Questions for debate:
What effects or affects would this type of law have if implemented on the federal level?
If such a law were to be implemented on the federal level, what would be an appropriate level of punishment?
My first question has to do with what do you mean by the word "is?"
While I wholeheartedly support the intent behind this law, I look back at the political history of my life and see so many bent truths that are taken in hook line and sinker by the public and I wonder if this law would have any effect on the public. Look at the effect of the focus on Iraq on American public opinion and see how many people believed or believe that Iraq has something directly to do with the 9-11 attacks. Do I believe that the bush adminstration directly lied about Iraq to the public? Actually more accurately do i see something that can be used to prosecute any adminstration official under this type of law. Naw, not really.
I think punishments could include substantial fines, a revocation of the privilege to use the American airwaves, full disclosure of the lies made by the offending party, and public corrections on the medium over which the lies were made public.
While I wholeheartedly support the intent behind this law, I look back at the political history of my life and see so many bent truths that are taken in hook line and sinker by the public and I wonder if this law would have any effect on the public. Look at the effect of the focus on Iraq on American public opinion and see how many people believed or believe that Iraq has something directly to do with the 9-11 attacks. Do I believe that the bush adminstration directly lied about Iraq to the public? Actually more accurately do i see something that can be used to prosecute any adminstration official under this type of law. Naw, not really.
I think punishments could include substantial fines, a revocation of the privilege to use the American airwaves, full disclosure of the lies made by the offending party, and public corrections on the medium over which the lies were made public.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Sep 23 2006, 10:54 AM) 
My first question has to do with what do you mean by the word "is?"
While I wholeheartedly support the intent behind this law, I look back at the political history of my life and see so many bent truths that are taken in hook line and sinker by the public and I wonder if this law would have any effect on the public. Look at the effect of the focus on Iraq on American public opinion and see how many people believed or believe that Iraq has something directly to do with the 9-11 attacks. Do I believe that the bush adminstration directly lied about Iraq to the public? Actually more accurately do i see something that can be used to prosecute any adminstration official under this type of law. Naw, not really.
I think punishments could include substantial fines, a revocation of the privilege to use the American airwaves, full disclosure of the lies made by the offending party, and public corrections on the medium over which the lies were made public.
Eeyore, I don't think any law can stop people from believing in lies, and those told after election are part of the job. However, this law has stopped one character-trashing campaign done by one of those infamous nonprofits not regulated by election reform law.
I see this as a huge step forward to bolstering libel and slander enforcement. When one runs for public office, the attitude before this law was that anything goes. People who dared run for public office should have expected to be trashed in the public square, regardless of truth.
Well, the Colorado legislature (Demo) passed this law, and Governor Owens (Repub) signed it. So, there was bi-partisan support, although vetoing this bill would have looked pretty darn bad for Owens. I think (only my opinion) that the legislature forced the signing, especially since it was kept down to a misdemeanor ($1,000 fine, one year in prison maximums).
I'd not be so harsh on the federal level, but I would make it a felony ($10,000 fine, ten year prison maximums).
It's still pretty early to tell, but I'm expecting to see more meaningful campaigns in Colorado. If the supporters of candidates cannot trash the opposition through lies, then they will have to push their candidates' actual positions on issues. Now, this is regulated through campaign reform, isn't it.
And so, through a simple little law, Colorado might have shown the rest of the nation how to do it right.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Sep 23 2006, 06:22 AM)
What effects or affects would this type of law have if implemented on the federal level?
The advertising industry is staffed by people who know how to string together a series of true statements that lead the listener to the desired conclusion. (Think: "Natural Male Enhancement".) Most national political figures have already mastered that same trick, or they've hired people who have. Thus, such a law would make criminals only of those who aren't clever enough to mislead with the truth, and they aren't the ones doing the most damage.
A case in point: I wouldn't want to be represented by someone who got elected by spreading false rumors that her political opponent was abusing cocaine. But a former mayor of my city got elected by doing just that. She made not a single false statement in her last minute election mailers. Each statement in the mailer was true, but collectively these statements implied (falsely) that her opponent was a drug-addict. Such a law would have had no impact upon that mayor.
The wording of the law you cite makes it a misdemeanor to communicate any false statement for the purposes of affecting the outcome of an election. In order to be workable as legislation, shouldn't it say "knowingly communicates any false statement"? There is a difference between lieing and making a false statement that one believes to be true. It is often easy to show that someone is making a false statement. It is usually difficult to prove he doesn't believe what he's saying.
I don't think the nation's business could progress, if politicians were constantly trying prosecute each other for false statements made during an election. Rather than implement such a law, the best response to someone making false statements is to demonstrate that they are attempting to mislead. (It helps if the news media pays as much attention to that demonstration as they did to the attempted misdirection.)
QUOTE
If such a law were to be implemented on the federal level, what would be an appropriate level of punishment?
In light of what I said above, exposure would be the appropriate punishment. There are times when suing for slander or libel might be appropriate. Sometimes a politician who won office as a result of making deliberately false statements should be impeached.
QUOTE
In light of what I said above, exposure would be the appropriate punishment. There are times when suing for slander or libel might be appropriate. Sometimes a politician who won office as a result of making deliberately false statements should be impeached.
srobert,
Yet there's something impelling about facing a year in the slammer, or as I propose on the federal level, ten years.
And it doesn't take actual litigation to get the nonprofits to back off, as has been demonstrated by the example cited in the article of the initial post. One can think of it as having received a warning ticket.
Libel and slander are civil suits. Several celebrities have tried this against the tabloids that regularly publish lies about them, and a few celebreties have won. However, the civil suits involve fines and orders to stop lying, not hard prison time.
This Colorado law stopped a political nonprofit dead in its tracks. The nonprofits are not campaigning directly for their candidate, just directly against the opposition. Campaign reform laws have left this loophole open, while this state law closes it. A similar law really should be implemented at the federal level, and then voters will only have to put up with the manipulations of truth that you've described. The bald-faced lies will be gone, as nobody wants to risk prison time over something as silly as a political lie, at least not those people in their right minds.
Maybe it's just Coloradans who will respond to this. After all, imagine being thrust into our overcrowded prison system at the height of ski season, or hiking season, or trout season, or whatever season one lives in Colorado to enjoy. Still, I can't believe that other areas of the country don't have good reasons to stay out of the prison system, such as scarlet marks on employment records, orange jumpsuits that give constant wedgies, sadistic guards, humiliation and so on (won't get graphic here, check the literature for details).
Well, for whatever reason, the law is working here. I've noticed a distinct lack of swift-boater styled television ads this election season. You'd think that someone passed a law or something
I don't know what to do about politicians and their truth manipulations, or those who actually believe that Bob (the cartoonish TV dude) lives large from taking natural male herbal enhancements. These are technically not lies, but practically speaking, the claims are nonsense. Seems that at some point, voters get sick of the same old lines.
Nevertheless, when the 2008 election season comes around, the swift-boater styled political nonprofits will be free to do as they please, unless someone passes a law (with teeth as big as the cartoonish Bob's).
Source
What effects or affects would this type of law have if implemented on the federal level?
Literally taken it would have a couple of problems from a legal enforcement standpoint. If only the intent of the legislation were implemented on the federal level then it would still come into conflict with the first amendment.
Consider a statement that somebody knows is true, but cannot verify with anything other than their own testimony. Do we allow this statement to be posted if there is no evidence directly to the contrary of the statement?
If we stop something like this then why don't we instead just extend the slander and libel definitions to include instances when discussing performance in a public office? (currently you are liable for any communication posts which personally attack any individual, but every elected official is completely unprotected from what otherwise might be slander as long as the topic remains focused on the public duties and responsibilities of that official)
For an example of an unprovable(and un-disprovable) statement consider any recent partisan attacks on Republicans or Democrats.
Although I personally might feel emotionally inclined to support such legislation, I can rationally deduce that any infringement onto the first amendment is very bad, and not worth the risk for only a possible improvement in the quality of debates. At some point you simply have to trust in the ability of the general public to reject the lies 51% , or more, of the time. You cannot legislate that people behave intelligently.
If such a law were to be implemented on the federal level, what would be an appropriate level of punishment?
There would have to be a scaled punishment level depending on the nature of the communication medium. I regularly receive lies in published form from two sources:
1) Un-accredited "news" flyers which are distributed across campus by hand into various mailboxes and tabletops.
2) Direct-Mail pieces (which coincidentally a few have been designed by the Trailhead Group.)
The first category is likely some small group of individuals who are ideological extremists, and the typical fines and prison sentence punishment are appropriate. Class 2 misdemeanor sounds appropriate.
In the second category it is a corporation or larger organization who is responsible and it becomes more difficult in deciding who should go to jail if found guilty. I don't have a good answer here, but maybe it would be appropriate to increase the fines for non-individuals found guilty?
What effects or affects would this type of law have if implemented on the federal level?
Literally taken it would have a couple of problems from a legal enforcement standpoint. If only the intent of the legislation were implemented on the federal level then it would still come into conflict with the first amendment.
Consider a statement that somebody knows is true, but cannot verify with anything other than their own testimony. Do we allow this statement to be posted if there is no evidence directly to the contrary of the statement?
If we stop something like this then why don't we instead just extend the slander and libel definitions to include instances when discussing performance in a public office? (currently you are liable for any communication posts which personally attack any individual, but every elected official is completely unprotected from what otherwise might be slander as long as the topic remains focused on the public duties and responsibilities of that official)
For an example of an unprovable(and un-disprovable) statement consider any recent partisan attacks on Republicans or Democrats.
Although I personally might feel emotionally inclined to support such legislation, I can rationally deduce that any infringement onto the first amendment is very bad, and not worth the risk for only a possible improvement in the quality of debates. At some point you simply have to trust in the ability of the general public to reject the lies 51% , or more, of the time. You cannot legislate that people behave intelligently.
If such a law were to be implemented on the federal level, what would be an appropriate level of punishment?
There would have to be a scaled punishment level depending on the nature of the communication medium. I regularly receive lies in published form from two sources:
1) Un-accredited "news" flyers which are distributed across campus by hand into various mailboxes and tabletops.
2) Direct-Mail pieces (which coincidentally a few have been designed by the Trailhead Group.)
The first category is likely some small group of individuals who are ideological extremists, and the typical fines and prison sentence punishment are appropriate. Class 2 misdemeanor sounds appropriate.
In the second category it is a corporation or larger organization who is responsible and it becomes more difficult in deciding who should go to jail if found guilty. I don't have a good answer here, but maybe it would be appropriate to increase the fines for non-individuals found guilty?
QUOTE(Barrackar @ Sep 30 2006, 12:56 AM)
Source
What effects or affects would this type of law have if implemented on the federal level?
Literally taken it would have a couple of problems from a legal enforcement standpoint. If only the intent of the legislation were implemented on the federal level then it would still come into conflict with the first amendment.
Consider a statement that somebody knows is true, but cannot verify with anything other than their own testimony. Do we allow this statement to be posted if there is no evidence directly to the contrary of the statement?
If we stop something like this then why don't we instead just extend the slander and libel definitions to include instances when discussing performance in a public office? (currently you are liable for any communication posts which personally attack any individual, but every elected official is completely unprotected from what otherwise might be slander as long as the topic remains focused on the public duties and responsibilities of that official)
For an example of an unprovable(and un-disprovable) statement consider any recent partisan attacks on Republicans or Democrats.
Although I personally might feel emotionally inclined to support such legislation, I can rationally deduce that any infringement onto the first amendment is very bad, and not worth the risk for only a possible improvement in the quality of debates. At some point you simply have to trust in the ability of the general public to reject the lies 51% , or more, of the time. You cannot legislate that people behave intelligently.
If such a law were to be implemented on the federal level, what would be an appropriate level of punishment?
There would have to be a scaled punishment level depending on the nature of the communication medium. I regularly receive lies in published form from two sources:
1) Un-accredited "news" flyers which are distributed across campus by hand into various mailboxes and tabletops.
2) Direct-Mail pieces (which coincidentally a few have been designed by the Trailhead Group.)
The first category is likely some small group of individuals who are ideological extremists, and the typical fines and prison sentence punishment are appropriate. Class 2 misdemeanor sounds appropriate.
In the second category it is a corporation or larger organization who is responsible and it becomes more difficult in deciding who should go to jail if found guilty. I don't have a good answer here, but maybe it would be appropriate to increase the fines for non-individuals found guilty?
Barrackar,
Regarding the First Amendment, I think this can be accommodated on a case-by-case basis. Since this article came out, I have noticed attack ads still on the air. Some of it simply can't be deemed lies, just untruths.
For example, sheriff so-and-so reduced a felony to a misdemeanor through a plea bargain.
Huh? Only judges can do that, not police officers.
So the claim is wrong, as in getting the answer wrong on a test. It isn't illegal to be mistaken. It isn't lying to be ignorant. This is advertising the stupidity of the organization making the wrong statement, and it would be appropriate to run counter ads that emphasize this ignorance.
Or, let the people figure it out. Eh, might be expecting too much here.
But, what if it could be demonstrated that the organization has members quite familiar with the way the legal system works, say one or more lawyers? I think then a case could be made that an intentional lie was made.
I don't think increasing fines will do any good. There's too much money in politics to make a dent.
What effects or affects would this type of law have if implemented on the federal level?
Continue the evisceration of the First Amendment most recently advanced by McCain-Feingold. The law, at least the portion of it posted here, gives absolutely no cover to the media outlet which innocently carries the transgression, nor does it leave any room for barroom discussion. If I think Candidate Mayo is a complete loser, and inform my fellows denizens of McGinty's that not only is he a loser, but he's also a gutless coward, when, in fact, he's actually won a couple of medals for shooting himse, er,... wounds suffered in combat, then I'm guilty of violating the law in question. (Of course, past performance does not guarantee future results, i.e. he's lost his nerve and is now a gutless coward....)
$1,000....
1 year in jail...
IF this law were passed on the Federal level, America's Debate would be toast. Done. Heck, eeeeevil competitors from Canada's Conversation could troll on in here, post all sorts of false statements regarding obscure Federal candidates, then just as the election nears, alert the Federal Electoral Statements Integrity Bureau and, as the hosts, who are publishing, broadcasting and/or circulating said false statements, zap go Jaime and Mike, flushshshshshsh goes AD, and ...
once again, Canada controls the political conversation on the North American continent... bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhah bhahah bha bwahahahahah
If such a law were to be implemented on the federal level, what would be an appropriate level of punishment?
Certainly. Public evisceration, followed by pouring live ants into the wound. Can't possibly have people telling lies about our honorable and esteemed leaders, or even honorable and esteemed potential leaders. After all, into tyranny for a penny, in for a pound.
I want tickets for when the comedians get their punishments....
Continue the evisceration of the First Amendment most recently advanced by McCain-Feingold. The law, at least the portion of it posted here, gives absolutely no cover to the media outlet which innocently carries the transgression, nor does it leave any room for barroom discussion. If I think Candidate Mayo is a complete loser, and inform my fellows denizens of McGinty's that not only is he a loser, but he's also a gutless coward, when, in fact, he's actually won a couple of medals for shooting himse, er,... wounds suffered in combat, then I'm guilty of violating the law in question. (Of course, past performance does not guarantee future results, i.e. he's lost his nerve and is now a gutless coward....)
$1,000....
1 year in jail...
IF this law were passed on the Federal level, America's Debate would be toast. Done. Heck, eeeeevil competitors from Canada's Conversation could troll on in here, post all sorts of false statements regarding obscure Federal candidates, then just as the election nears, alert the Federal Electoral Statements Integrity Bureau and, as the hosts, who are publishing, broadcasting and/or circulating said false statements, zap go Jaime and Mike, flushshshshshsh goes AD, and ...
once again, Canada controls the political conversation on the North American continent... bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhah bhahah bha bwahahahahah
If such a law were to be implemented on the federal level, what would be an appropriate level of punishment?
Certainly. Public evisceration, followed by pouring live ants into the wound. Can't possibly have people telling lies about our honorable and esteemed leaders, or even honorable and esteemed potential leaders. After all, into tyranny for a penny, in for a pound.
I want tickets for when the comedians get their punishments....
BD,
Your argument rests on the idea that the First Amendment permits political lies intended to influence the results of an election.
While such tactics have been successful in the past, that does not mean that political lies enjoy First Amendment protection. So far the regulation has been through slander and libel lawsuits, but the Colorado law swings in from the criminal standpoint.
The question then becomes can criminal law be used to control political lies, not whether political lies are protected under the First.
So yeah, better watch that ad copy, oh media corporations, and AD had better put up well-developed rules and moderation.
Oh yeah, AD has done this from day one. I think that's termed as being responsible.
If www.swiftkickers.bgs gets dinked, so be it.
Barroom discussions are exempt due to their nature. Nobody cares enough to bring a lawsuit. Someone might get into a fight, and we already have criminal laws about that.
Your argument rests on the idea that the First Amendment permits political lies intended to influence the results of an election.
While such tactics have been successful in the past, that does not mean that political lies enjoy First Amendment protection. So far the regulation has been through slander and libel lawsuits, but the Colorado law swings in from the criminal standpoint.
The question then becomes can criminal law be used to control political lies, not whether political lies are protected under the First.
So yeah, better watch that ad copy, oh media corporations, and AD had better put up well-developed rules and moderation.
Oh yeah, AD has done this from day one. I think that's termed as being responsible.
If www.swiftkickers.bgs gets dinked, so be it.
Barroom discussions are exempt due to their nature. Nobody cares enough to bring a lawsuit. Someone might get into a fight, and we already have criminal laws about that.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 2 2006, 04:33 AM)
BD,
Your argument rests on the idea that the First Amendment permits political lies intended to influence the results of an election.
The statement that Bush stole Florida . During the '04 election, this was trotted out in order to claim that Bush was not legitimately elected in the first place, and therefore didna deserve re-election, or as some would say, election now rather than selection. The only problem is nobody has been able to prove that Bush stole Florida, and all the newspapers, including the NY Times (no friend of BushCo), have thoroughly investigated the Florida Fiasco and concluded that darn Bush won legitimately. By the standards of this law, the Bush stole Florida meme is a criminal statement.
QUOTE
While such tactics have been successful in the past, that does not mean that political lies enjoy First Amendment protection. So far the regulation has been through slander and libel lawsuits, but the Colorado law swings in from the criminal standpoint.
Yup, which means that now incumbents and the political insiders have yet another hammer to keep people from busting up their cozy little racket. One thing that you're overlooking here is in a slander/libel lawsuit, the plaintiff generally has to pay the expenses of the defendant if the plaintiff loses...., with criminal prosecution, coming up innocent does nothing to offset your legal bills. Malicious prosecution will become quite popular to defend at-risk members of the "in crowd", and the ability to bring a criminal case against the upstart, a case that won't be completed until AFTER the election, will itself become a political weapon. Nothing quite like placing the criminal justice system directly in the service of politics, eh?QUOTE
The question then becomes can criminal law be used to control political lies, not whether political lies are protected under the First.
To think, we've managed to stagger through 225 years without these absolutely critical controls for our political system. What dumb luck! 
QUOTE
So yeah, better watch that ad copy, oh media corporations, and AD had better put up well-developed rules and moderation.
Oh yeah, AD has done this from day one. I think that's termed as being responsible.
Yup, and undoubtedly AD has sufficient resources to insure that not a single false statement regarding any candidate for 468+ Federal offices is posted here. Mike and Jaime can fact check all those races (don't forget the primaries), or round up enough skilled moderators to do so .... Oh yeah, AD has done this from day one. I think that's termed as being responsible.
QUOTE
If www.swiftkickers.bgs gets dinked, so be it.
And this statement reveals exactly why this law is a bad idea. You've already got the partisan jones on to use it to silence those who you think are lying. QUOTE
Barroom discussions are exempt due to their nature. Nobody cares enough to bring a lawsuit. Someone might get into a fight, and we already have criminal laws about that.
Really? What provision in the law gives any exemption for barroom discussions? Plain and simple, the standard is "are you trying to sway the election." If I'm trying to convince Clem Cladiddlehopper not to vote for Candidate Mayo, then I am attempting to affect the vote. Common sense may lead you to assume the barroom exemption, but surely you've seen enough by now to know that common sense has no place in most courtrooms in this country.
This is funny: The ad that has been yanked is for an incumbent.
It's not that incumbents are using this law to retain power. But they could, if challengers make ads that contain outright lies.
Seriously BD, nobody cares if you lie in a bar. I don't recommend it though. The floor's real dirty.
You can still argue to Clem and try to change his mind. Political ads still run that don't tell outright lies, just partial truths.
Your case about using this law as harrassment against the opposition doesn't make sense when one considers the laws against bringing in trivial lawsuits.
Heh, the swiftkickers is a lie. I made it up, along with the .bgs domain. Something that does not exist has no political leaning, at least in reality. In my fiction, the swiftkickers is a soccer team made up of aliens from Alpha Centauri. Each member has eight legs and two heads. Their games aren't much fun to watch, but then we are talking about soccer here.
I suppose if it could be shown that an AD member lies consistently, and that these lies actually had the potential of swaying an election, then a lawsuit might be brought up. I just don't see it as very likely.
Other members can complain to the moderators. The moderators can shut off a member's access -- thus, there's oversight control of the board. But if nobody complains, that indicates that nobody cares too. They're probably skimming over the posts that contain nothing but lies.
I don't share your distrust of courts, but then I've not been in one since that illegal turn ticket back in 1985. Charges were dropped. The cop never showed up, guess he didn't care or was afraid. Had a pretty good counter argument and a witness. The cop thought I was out of state, but no, just relocated for a job.
Anyway, the law has been on the books for two years. One lawsuit has come of this. Guess we can wait and see if the law gets abused as claimed in Colorado, and if not, then maybe try it on the national level.
One thing I have noticed -- an opposition ad has come out that emphasises the ad for the incumbent got yanked on legal grounds. That's a true statement, just not relevant.
So, irrelevance can still be used too. Political ads can be stupid and irrelevant -- our political system is safe!
It's not that incumbents are using this law to retain power. But they could, if challengers make ads that contain outright lies.
Seriously BD, nobody cares if you lie in a bar. I don't recommend it though. The floor's real dirty.
You can still argue to Clem and try to change his mind. Political ads still run that don't tell outright lies, just partial truths.
Your case about using this law as harrassment against the opposition doesn't make sense when one considers the laws against bringing in trivial lawsuits.
Heh, the swiftkickers is a lie. I made it up, along with the .bgs domain. Something that does not exist has no political leaning, at least in reality. In my fiction, the swiftkickers is a soccer team made up of aliens from Alpha Centauri. Each member has eight legs and two heads. Their games aren't much fun to watch, but then we are talking about soccer here.
I suppose if it could be shown that an AD member lies consistently, and that these lies actually had the potential of swaying an election, then a lawsuit might be brought up. I just don't see it as very likely.
Other members can complain to the moderators. The moderators can shut off a member's access -- thus, there's oversight control of the board. But if nobody complains, that indicates that nobody cares too. They're probably skimming over the posts that contain nothing but lies.
I don't share your distrust of courts, but then I've not been in one since that illegal turn ticket back in 1985. Charges were dropped. The cop never showed up, guess he didn't care or was afraid. Had a pretty good counter argument and a witness. The cop thought I was out of state, but no, just relocated for a job.
Anyway, the law has been on the books for two years. One lawsuit has come of this. Guess we can wait and see if the law gets abused as claimed in Colorado, and if not, then maybe try it on the national level.
One thing I have noticed -- an opposition ad has come out that emphasises the ad for the incumbent got yanked on legal grounds. That's a true statement, just not relevant.
So, irrelevance can still be used too. Political ads can be stupid and irrelevant -- our political system is safe!
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.