Massachusetts high court strikes down law that barred false statements in political campaigns

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press

A Massachusetts law that makes it a crime to publish false statements about political candidates is unconstitutional, the state's highest court ruled Thursday.

The Supreme Judicial Court's ruling came in a case involving a state lawmaker from Cape Cod who last year sought a criminal complaint against the treasurer of a political action committee. At issue were fliers that Democratic Rep. Brian Mannal said accused him of putting the interests of sex offenders ahead of families.

The justices, in a unanimous 31-page decision, said the 1946 law was "inconsistent with the fundamental right of free speech."

... Mannal said the decision gives a green light to anyone who wants to lie to win an election.

Read more: http://www.startribune.com/court-strikes-down-law-barring-false-campaign-statements/320934311/

[padfun]

1. Another nail in the coffin.

[onecaliberal]

2. What. The. Fuck?!?

[GeorgeGist]

3. Let Freedumb™ ring.

[MADem]

4. Damn, that's a shame. That was a useful law, IMO. nt

[Bonhomme Richard]

5. Truthfully..how could a republican win an election if......

they couldn't lie?

[Feeling the Bern]

6. Lying is constitutionally protected speech. I hate the decision, but it was the right one

[Fred Sanders]

14. What happened to the obligation of a free press to tell folks who is lying and who is not? That was supposed to

be the protection, in the constitution, against the liars?

[Orrex]

16. Which amendment is that?

[Psephos]

23. You think that's in the Constitution?!?

yikes

[Fred Sanders]

29. Did you now know the press is the only business mentioned in the constitution? First amendment. Why is that?

And if some folks think that was a mistake or just put there by accident, fine with me, I can not educate everyone.

I have my opinion, others can have their own. Mine is that the free press has an obligation, in return for it's protection in the constitution as the only business named, and that is to tell the truth and root out the liars.

[24601]

32. You mean the only for-profit business? It also mentions the President, VP, Senators, Representatives

and politics are some of the biggest businesses going.

The fact that the press is free means that the Constitution imposes no obligation on them.

[djg21]

33. the First according to SCOTUS.

United States v. Alvarez

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Alvarez_No_11210_2012_BL_160939_US_June_28_2012_C.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez

[valerief]

17. WRONG! Pols are supposed to work in the public interest. This isn't some ruling

about hipster's blog.

[Feeling the Bern]

19. AGain, I agree, but it is not the state's job to do that. Lying is protected speech

it is up to the media to do their job and the voters to do theirs. I like the law. I want a law like this, but it is inherently unconstitutional.

[valerief]

20. I wholeheartedly disagree. We can't lie in court. We shouldn't lie about pol candidates. nt

[Feeling the Bern]

21. Difference is this isn't a court of law. There is a different standard.

Again, I agree with you. Believe me I do. . .but I can see where the court can make its decision.

[djg21]

34. The distinction is that it is political speech.

Courts, including SCOTUS, are loathe to chill political speech. They rely on the notion that false political speech can be remedied with more political speech, so voters ultimately can determine on their own what is true and what is false. Read SCOTUS' United States v. Alvarez decicision. I posted a link above. You may not agree entirely with the decision -- I don't -- but it does make some sense and is the law. The Mass decision is not surprising.

[TeddyR]

28. But in court

You are testifying under oath and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, etc. This law was plainly unconstitutional and should have been overturned. Hopefully the press will do its job and the public will educate itself but even if neither of those happens we should not support laws that inhibit a constitutionally protected right.

[ananda]

7. I don't understand how laws against slander and libel ...

... would undermine the constitutional protections of free speech.

Isn't there a fundamental right to protection of one's good name
and reputation?

[mazzarro]

8. Does this fundamental right extend to what one tells the law enforcement agencies and the courts?

If there is a fundamental right to say anything including lying, can one use that defence in a court of law or even when being interrogated by by law enforcement without being charged for lying?

[former9thward]

10. There is a federal law against lying to federal officials.

Which is why it is idiotic to talk to them. Many states do not have state laws against lying. It is legal to give false statements to law enforcement in those states. Some states do have such laws and it is not legal to lie to law enforcement.

[mazzarro]

22. So in that case

It will be okay - no crime - for one to lie in order to be elected a federal official; thereafter it will be a crime for anyone to lie to that federal official who gained office by lying? Hmmmm!

[former9thward]

30. No you can lie all you want to an elected official.

And yes you can lie to become an elected official. But you can't lie to federal law enforcement or federal regulators who are investigating a case.

[Psephos]

24. Yet the courts have found that it's legal for cops to lie to you.

The "JustUs" system in full bloom.

[former9thward]

31. Yes, you are right.

And that crap you see on TV and movies where they say a cop has to tell you he is a cop if you ask is total BS. They can lie about that and the courts will back them up.

[sorefeet]

13. Thats what it sounds like to me

Lying is legal, it's your right, so go lie your ass off. You are a liar, no problem. It's your constitutional right and won't affect your credibility as a moral, ethical human being. You are still respected. So it should work in a court of law.

[bucolic_frolic]

12. And that's how it should be pursued

civil litigation for slander and libel

if that doesn't stick, there is no case.

And all of this partly because money permits unlimited political advertising

Proving slander is difficult. The plaintiff becomes the focus of the suit.

[mother earth]

9. Confirmation that the courts at all levels have been bought & paid for, yeah we are in oligarchy.

[asiliveandbreathe]

11. It makes a difference if the person is a public or private person

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Criminal+libel

Where the plaintiff in a defamation action is a private citizen who is not in the public eye, the law extends a lesser degree of constitutional protection to defamatory statements.

Public figures voluntarily place themselves in a position that invites close scrutiny, whereas private citizens who have not entered public life do not relinquish their interest in protecting their reputation. In addition, public figures have greater access to the means to publicly counteract false statements about them.

For these reasons, a private citizen's reputation and privacy interests tend to outweigh free speech considerations and deserve greater protection from the courts. (See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 [1974]).

....but then, the person libeled in the Lincoln story - by Lincoln police was awarded damages to the tune of +$259,000 -

[valerief]

15. If you can't buy it, you lie it. This ruling should make it **perfectly clear** that pols

do not work in the public interest. If they did, they'd be required to tell the truth.

[yeoman6987]

18. It seems the United States is going opposite

Texas and Louisiana and North Carolina getting conservative issues knocked out and California and Massachusetts is getting liberal issues knocked out. Kinda strange.

[CBGLuthier]

25. Not strange at all, both conservatives and liberals suggest highly unconstitutional things

from time to time. As in this case.

[Judi Lynn]

26. So damned sad. What a deteriorated set of values. Unbelievable. n/t

[sendero]

27. How could this work any other way?

In this case, the statement about "putting the interest of sex offenders...." is not a lie it is an opinion. No court of law could determine if it was a lie because it is an opinion.

And besides that, lies have been a part of political campaigning since the origin of the country. There is no practical solution to that problem.

[librechik]

35. "In a horse already out of the barn ruling…"n/t