General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Unanimous SCOTUS Decision in SBA List v. Driehaus is extremely important.
The long and the short of it, politicians and political groups have a constitutionally guaranteed right to LIE in political advertisements.
The reason I consider this to be extremely important is we can use it to constantly remind people political advertisement is rarely ever honest.
The decision as penned by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)So, SBA essentially wants to get rid of an Ohio law that makes it illegal to lie in political advertising.
Because telling the truth in political advertising would be... bad. Having an accurately informed electorate would be... bad.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Most campaign claims are not 100% true or false. There are half-truths, statements that are true but misleading, statements that are open to differing interpretations, and so on. The Washington Post fact checker, for example, does not adjudge statements "true" or "false" but awards between one and four "pinnochios" depending on the degree to which they see the statement as misleading.
With such a law in place, whoever gets to decide on whether a political claim is "true" or "false" has an extraordinary amount of power to censor political speech. Imagine a billboard that claimed "Bush Lied Us Into War" being ordered removed because the claimant could not prove the literal truth of this statement.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I find the greater importance of the decision the fact that it's timely during an election cycle to aid us in reminding people those politica ads are almost never honest.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)This ruling did not uphold the right to lie.
At issue before the court was if SBA had standing to challenge the law. They ruled they do have standing, so now the real issue will work its way through the system.
Huge difference.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It's blatantly unconstitutional.
The only thing standing between the law being overturned at a lower level was the issue of standing. That's settled now.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals must now hear the case as a first amendment case. There's no way they can rule the law constitutional now.