(Washington) State court backs lying in politics

Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer

You just can't keep a politician from lying.

In a 5-4 ruling Thursday, the state Supreme Court struck down a 1999 law that banned political candidates from intentionally lying about their opponents. The high court majority said the law was an affront to free speech.

"The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment," Justice Jim Johnson wrote in the majority opinion.

The dissent called the decision "an invitation to lie with impunity."



Read more: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/334406_speech05.html

---

What next? "Truth in advertising" laws? I can just imagine KFC running ads about how their product will make you lose weight, and banks promising loans with only 2% interest and a small, difficult to see asterisk.

Or does it only apply to Republican politicians?

Of course, the courts will have a lot of work clarifying this ruling but at a guess....

Things go back to the way they were before the 1999 law. Libel is still in place -- if I were running for office, I can be charged with and convicted of libel if I were to claim my opponent was a Saudi terrorist or ate puppies or kept seven mistresses. However, I could say in my campaign literature that my opponent raised taxes 50 times in the last year (even if there weren't that many tax bills to begin with), strongly supported making atheism a capital offense (despite his being an atheist himself) and wanted to decriminalize child rape, all without fear of any kind of legal penalty.

The basis of the Court's ruling seems to be that so many people assume that campaign material is total bunk to begin with that no reasonable person could possibly believe it anyway. I'm actually inclined to accept that reasoning.

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox "Investigators" team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) "a false, distorted or slanted story" about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. (my emphasis) Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, "It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim."

<snip>

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html

This ruling targeted a specific state law that required politicans not to lie in their campaign literature.

hence, the post.

this is horrifying.