Supreme Court will rule on whether political falsehoods are protected by the First Amendment
Why the Supreme Court hasn’t long ago settled this matter is simply beyond me. The statutes at issue should have been laughed away before they were ever adopted.
But here we are, as if there’s even one chance in hell that the high court will uphold an Ohio law against political lying.
After all, when it comes to political rhetoric, truth is often a vague concept.
The story is HERE:
Groups at both ends of the ideological spectrum are challenging an Ohio law, on the books since the 1970s, that forbids candidates, issue groups or anyone else from knowingly or recklessly making false statements about someone on the ballot — whether the untruths are intended to help elect or defeat the candidate. Fifteen other states similarly criminalize “false” political statements, briefs in the case say, but this is the first constitutional challenge against one of those laws that’s made it to the Supreme Court….
The plaintiffs are hoping to bolster their cause by likening the Ohio statute to a 2005 law that made it a federal crime to lie about receiving military honors or decorations. Two years ago, the justices voted 6-3 to strike down that “Stolen Valor Act” as a violation of the First Amendment.
But as is the case so often, the court has a wide opening to decide the case without addressing the big constitutional question.