The First Amendment Standard That Applies To False Campaign Speech

[Towntalk]

So it's alright to tell an outright bald faced lie about your opponent. You're shielded. And you wonder why so many people have absolute contempt for those politicians that use these tactics, and even more contempt for those political advisors who encourage their candidate to resort to known lies. And where is the national interest in accusing an opponent of monsterous crimes knowing that if it was under other circumstancs that a court would find against him big time.

If these same lies were published in a news story under thew same circumstances ... a reporter writing a story that he new was a bald faced lie, not only would he lose his job, but the paper would have to make a settlement with the wronged party.

If a candidate is so disperate that he has to resort to outragious lies, he is not worthy of any consideration.

Such tactics certainly aren't new, but how many candidates that used these tactics ever got elected?

[Frank Bellamy, MAP Masters of Applied Politics]

First Amendment protection of campaign speech is quite extensive because it is based on the premise that there is;

"a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

[Towntalk]

Does that mean that in the heat of debate that your opponent could accuse you of a most outlandish sin, and you would have no recourse than to try to defend yourself?

Case in point:

Candidate A accuses Candidate B of being Gay and a child molester. Candidate A makes the charge in flyers, a TV ad, and a radio spot as well as in campaign apperances.

[Frank Bellamy, MAP Masters of Applied Politics]

The First Amendment Standard That Applies To False Campaign Speech

The leading case of New York Times v. Sullivan establishes the scope of First Amendment protection for election campaign speech. According to the Supreme Court's opinion in this case, the First Amendment protection of campaign speech is quite extensive because it is based on the premise that there is;

"a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

The opinion goes on to say that some false statements are permissible in public debate because false "statement is inevitable in free debate and must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the 'breathing space' that they 'need . . . to survive.'"


Source: by Moritz Law Professor Edward B. Foley