Wednesday, January 21, 2009

R. I. P. Free Speech

HOUSE BILL No. 1521 Indiana State Legislature:

DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Synopsis: False campaign material. Makes it a Class A misdemeanor for a person to intentionally participate in the preparation, dissemination, or broadcast of paid political advertising or campaign material, or in the drafting of a letter to the editor, that: (1) concerns the personal or political character or act of a candidate or the effect of a ballot question; and (2) is designed to or tends to elect, injure, promote, or defeat the candidate or promote or defeat the public question; if the advertising or campaign material or the letter contains information or a statement that was false and the person knew of the falsity or acted with reckless disregard as to truth or falsity. Exempts a person who merely disseminates or broadcasts the material or letter in the normal course of business. Provides that a candidate for nomination or election to public office (if successful) forfeits the nomination or public office if the candidate commits a violation, unless the candidate's violation was trivial or occurred despite the candidate's good faith.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the purpose of this law. Under slander and libel laws, it has been illegal for years to speak or write with the intent of harming someone with lies. I don't see how this "new" law changes anything, other than specifically disqualifying a conadidate that knowing commits slander or libel.

Did I miss something?

Anonymous said...

You can't say that!It's illegal.

Schteveo said...

I'm with Goober, slander was illegal, this, like many laws, is piling on.

Or, did I miss something too?

Snorpht FingerPoot said...

So that means I can call Obama a Muslim Markist Idiot all day long, rite?

I mean, I wouldn't be lying, rite?

In any case EAT ME or SUE ME!

Blue said...

can they arrest me for my picture?

Anonymous said...

Snorpth, my sarcasm monitor is off recenty, so i can only assume you were asking an honest question.

Slander and libel laws do not cover opinion. To say that you THINK some guy is a purple-butt skunk lizard is one thing.

To say that he IS a purple-butt skunk lizard, and that you can prove it, when you cannot do so, is, and always has been, illegal.

This law is redundant, big time. My guess is the commission of slander and libel would be big enough offenses to disqualify a person from public office as it is. The only thing that this law did was remove the guess. They now ARE big enough offenses.

And they should be. There are a lot of lies about things in politics, and i am one who believes that an out-and-out bald-faced lie should be a disqualifier for public office. (Cue HLF: "Then your precious W should be kicked out because he lied! snivel, whine, snivel" as if i haven't made it abundantly clear that I am no fan of W, and never have been)

For instance, in our governor's race here a while back, the challenger accused the incumbent of running up a 3 billion dollar deficit. The incumbent responded via political ad, that there was no deficit when it was a proven, known fact that there was. That, my friends, was a lie. A big one.

And she won anyway, because no one who voted, apparently, was interested in truth. They were only interested in what they were TOLD.

(That being said, I'm not sure that the challenger would have been any better than the incumbent, we were kind of given a giant douche/turd sandwich choice out here in the great state of Washington.)

Missy said...

The difference Goober is that this law covers ballot questions. You can not tell a lie or make misleading statements regarding a ballot question nor can you slander it.

Schteveo said...

Missy,
allow me to show my ignorance, how does it cover ballot questions and some silly examples, if you please.

Blue said...

"...is designed to or tends to elect, injure, promote, or DEFEAT the candidate or promote or DEFEAT the public question..."

emphasis mine ... if your ad says that the other candidate should not win, or that the ballot issue should not pass, you would be guilty of violating this new law... in Indiana, the first state to hang a white man for killing an Indian.

Anonymous said...

They believe they're in Washington to "make laws" and by god that's what they're going to do.

If they didn't make laws, lawyers would have nothing to do.

"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."
Will Rogers

Anonymous said...

Eventually, we will have so many laws regulating the most intimate and minute details of our lives that we will never be able to avoid violating some of them. Then, our government will have gotten what it wanted all along, the ability to kidnap us, steal our property and kill us if necessary to ensure our compliance with any idiocy our public servants devise.

Anonymous said...

Well, we are a nation of laws, aren't we? Or is that a nation of fools. No matter, since we usually lack the will to enforce them.

The key words in this new law are "intentionally" and "knew of the falsity", which means you have to prove intent. That's the "out" for the lawyers. Besides, how can you have politics without lies? Have you ever seen a politician who didn't lie?

Since our political system started, the people have made it known to their elected officials, via their weakness and tolerance, that they don't mind being lied to. In fact, many people need the lies, since they are unwilling/incapable of dealing with reality. How else would you explain Tuesdays activities in DC?

Anonymous said...

"Learn these words, Jack 'I have no recollection of that, Senator',"

Tom Clancy's a Clear and Present Danger, one of the better Jack Ryan movies because they were still using Harrison Ford, as opposed to the lamentably lame performance by whichever Baldwin it was (alec?) in Red October.

"Oh, and Ryan, be careful, schome thingsh in hea don't react well to bullitsch"

Really, Captain Ramius? There are things on a NUCLEAR SUBMARINE that I probably shouldn't shoot?

Sorry, got sidetracked...

Anonymous said...

OK, so I read the measure again, and I do agree that it specifically mentions ballot measures. Now I understand the prpose of this law. The rest of the stuff about candidates, specifically, did not apply to slander or libel, because, here is the clincher, this law is not specifically about the person, but about his policies, stances, and beliefs as they apply to politics.

THis is interesting. So now, what Gregoire did in my previous example would be illegal under this new law.

Hmmm, I don't know about this. This is me, the advocate of personal responsiblity and pragmatism that people will be honest and truthful because it is in their best interest, and that voters will actually do their homework on whether a statement is true or not.

Fact it, neither one of those naiive assumptions is even remotely true. This law may actually give thinking people a recourse when the opposite candidate goes off the reservation and starts to lie about things liek the existance of a 3 billion dollar deficit.

I will have to think on this one for a while...

Anonymous said...

Really, Captain Ramius? There are things on a NUCLEAR SUBMARINE that I probably shouldn't shoot?

Yeah, like participating in a shootout with pistols, in a metal tube, 200 feet underwater, in a room filled with hydrogen bombs.