Conservatives and media promoted three big lies about the health care law. The law included death panels, it funded abortions, and it was a government takeover of the health care system. All three lies were used very effectively in the 2010 midterm elections.
A plain reading of the statute, without spin or attenuated slippery-slope reasoning revealed all three assertions as lies, but it seemed no one was willing to simply state what was in the law, and what wasn’t.
A federal judge in Ohio said Monday that the Affordable Care Act does not provide for taxpayer funding for abortion. The statement was the cornerstone of the judge’s ruling to allow a defamation lawsuit brought against the Susan B. Anthony List by a former congressman to move forward.
Former Ohio Representative Steve Driehaus sued the SBA List for defamation of character during the 2010 election cycle, when the anti-abortion group ran an ad campaign on the premise that Driehaus had voted for a bill “that includes taxpayer funding for abortion,” in reference to Driehaus’s vote in favor of the ACA. Driehaus, an anti-abortion Democrat, had initially filed a complaint with the Ohio Election Commission over a billboard that said he’d voted for “taxpayer funding for abortion.” The OEC found probable cause that the statement was false, and the SBA List filed a complaint in federal court that its ads were based on the group’s own interpretation of the law. The billboard was taken down but radio ads and flyers against Driehaus continued, according to court documents. Driehaus then countersued SBA List for defamation. SBA List is ready to go to trial, stands by its statements and said the ruling “chills free speech.” “Steve Driehaus’s constituents saw the truth about his pro-abortion record and made their voices heard on Election Day,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “Their conclusion — that Steve Driehaus voted for a bill allowing taxpayer funding of abortion — is backed by every major pro-life organization in the country along with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Congressional Research Service and other nonpartisan organizations. The SBA List will continue to defend its actions, the voters and the right to criticize our elected officials.”
Driehaus lost the election but Judge Timothy Black stated in a decision that the defamation lawsuit could move forward because “the express language of the PPACA does not provide for taxpayer funded abortion. That is a fact and it is clear on its face.” SBA List’s request for summary judgment on the case was denied.
That is a fact and it is clear on its face.
Now, why was that so hard? Why did it have to get to a judge?
WereBear
Because, whether by design or by sheer volume of shitflinging, creating a public consciousness where one never knows where the truth lies results in these kinds of ridiculous situations.
When the little boy who cries, “The Emperor has no clothes!” gets caned, unable to vote, and allowed no loans to go to college; I believe it has a chilling effect.
TheMightyTrowel
Not to mention that the judiciary tends to be highly educated and trained in critical thinking skills, neither of which are required for government office… or, apparently, media commentary positions.
Ash Can
Once again, right-wingers insisting that lies are government-protected free speech. Here’s hoping Driehaus wins a judgment against the SBA list that’s big enough that they can’t afford bus fare home after the trial.
Kay
@WereBear:
I think this could get ludicrous, so in that sense the SBA folks are right. We’ll need a judicial ruling on each and every fact.
We spent two years debating where the President was born.
On the flip side, maybe it will save time.
Shawn in ShowMe
Wingtards slander those with the facts on their side all the time, from evolution to climate change to the unsustainability of our energy policy. If simply stating the facts was enough to refute lies, the Reagan Revolution never would have occurred.
WereBear
@Kay: I do believe it is ludicrous already.
cleek
judicial activism at its worst!
4tehlulz
I’m sure this decision will be reported widely in the media.
Jado
Because until a judge gets involved (and really, even after that), those with a stake in the lie will crucify those who call it a lie. And they will continue to lie in the face of all evidence, because magical thinking has been shown to have no consequences, and if the lie is stated loudly enough it MIGHT become accepted fact. And the media promotes that, so sometimes it works.
So where is the downside?
JPL
@Jado:
artem1s
the real Win/Win here is that someone, anyone is fighting back against the Teahaddist Primary Front. Dreihaus is no friend to the Choice movement. But he will be a ‘sympathetic’ figure for the conservative judiciary in Ohio.
The GOP in Ohio are finding that you can’t get much done if the party is constantly fighting over who gets to eat their own dead. Hopefully it will spread to more of the party. Added bonus if it makes their districts vulnerable to a Democratic challenger or even a true third party challenge.
Shorter version, we have met the enemy and they are us.
Poopyman
@WereBear: It’s been ludicrous for years, but it continues because it works for Republicans. And for the large corporate media. I.e. the media.
MikeJ
@Ash Can:
And they are. The government did not step in and stop them from spewing their lies.
If, after the fact, the people who are harmed by their lies want to punish them the constitution has no problem with that.
no video at work
In other news – water is wet, fire burns and teabaggers are idiots.
So what?
The ‘low information voters’ will never hear this and even if they did it would still be a he said/she said thing to be taken with a grain of salt & on an equal footing with death panel-soshallist-abortion lovin ‘facts’.
cleek
didn’t Jon Stewart have a guest on who was making crazy claims about ACA, and when challenged to find the specific text, she couldn’t do it?
capt
And yet, the slugs will run ads that lie all the time. It is a good thing a court recognizes the truth but what about all the people who didn’t take the lie to court? They just get scroood.
Ash Can
@MikeJ: I know that we’re picking at nits while basically agreeing, but if someone can legally exact retribution for the lies, there’s not much “protection” going on there.
The Other Bob
It is less acceptable for an elected to call another pol a liar than to actually lie. Plus the media does such a poor job of fact telling that each accusation of lying just becomes back and forth name calling.
Steve
There is a very fine line between this lie and stuff that is constitutionally protected. This particular case doesn’t offend me, but there’s a lot of mischief that can arise from letting courts adjudicate the truth of political claims in general. I realize people are desperate to see some accountability for these right-wingers who just lie and lie and lie, and I feel the same way.
John Puma
Good for, Driehaus in his court win.
The problem is that there is NO requirement that a candidate, much less a supporting entity, must tell the truth in campaign utterances.
Add to this, the same lack of requirement for media AT ANY TIME.
Of course, if Driehaus chooses to run again, it will be amid withering charges from the GOP that he associates, and hires(!?!, TRIAL ATTORNEYS (OMFG!) Of course, here it will be the truth just hyped into irrelevant hysteria by the radical reich ideology machine.
The Republic of Stupidity
Well…
Clearly, the obvious solution to this problem is to simply RECALL that judge!
There!
Just Some Fuckhead
@Steve:
This went to the Ohio Election Commission like it should have. It was the right wing group that took it to court first.
dpCap
Not to be cynical but do you seriously think this won’t be appealed?
I can see the 5-4 decision now with Roberts giving the opinion, “the Appellant is a DFH therefore, respecfully, he has no right to sue an honorable group such as the SBA List.”
Felonious Wench
@artem1s:
This.
Ol' Dirty DougJ
Legislating from the bench!
kay
@dpCap:
I don’t know anything about defamation. The claim simply got past summary judgment, and the bar for summary judgment is very low. I do know that. So I wouldn’t get all excited a big win or anything.
I think it’s interesting for a coupla reasons. The judge just looked at the PPACA. That’s all he did. The question was “is it in there”? It’s not.
I think there are valid concerns about a “chilling effect” but the solution to that is pretty simple: don’t put a blatant lie up on a billboard. There’s about 50,000 ways the SBA folks could have finessed this, we don’t lack weasel words. They chose to use definitive language because it’s more effective politically.
So my response to their whining is “tough shit”. Next time, they’ll do a better job lying. Throw some qualifiers in there. Like that.
Too, this is an intra-anti abortion battle. The House member they targeted was anti-abortion. Which means, to me, that SBA is a Republican group, not an issue group. They don’t so much oppose abortion as they oppose Democrats.
Voters do need clarity. Who is opposing what, and for what reasons? That’s information they need.
Skippy-san
Why did it get to a judge-because Teabaggers don’t care about the facts. They have a preconcieved notion of how things work-and it is reinforced every day by Sir Rupert, so they don’t really care.
Its going to take more of these types of lawsuits and other economic actions to hurt them in the only place they truly care about, their bank accounts.
SiubhanDuinne
@cleek: yes, wasn’t that Betsy McCaughey? (Working from memory here but I can try to find a source later on.)
Gregory
Because the SCLM refuses to point out when facts are clear on their face. SASQ.
Poopyman
@SiubhanDuinne: That was my recollection, but I couldn’t remember her name.
cleek
@SiubhanDuinne:
yeah. that sounds right.
kay
@cleek:
I saw that. It was hysterical. I loved her huge binder.
Someone should tell her if she flags every page she isn’t going to be able to find anything. She’s one of those people who highlight whole books. Somehow she missed the whole point of flagging.
Those long moments of dead air when she was looking for a quote from one or another lobbyist were just great.
sneezy
@Ash Can:
This seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what the right to free speech means. It is just that “Congress shall make no law” to prohibit speech before the fact. That right to say what you want is all that is protected. There is absolutely no sense in which it is intended to protect people from the consequences of what they choose to say.
So it’s just way off base to look at this case and say “there’s not much ‘protection‘ going on.” Congress has made no law prohibiting the SBA List from lying about politicians they don’t like, and that is all the “protection” they have any right to expect.
Yevgraf
Lies for Jesus are OK. Witness the Schiavo spectacle, when a relatively small number of activists astroturfed nitwit Congressional, White House and Florida staffers into believing that
1) there were a lot more of them than actually existed;
2) that Terri Schiavo had more liquid than a brain.
The conclusive proof that Lies for Jesus are OK came from asshole lying piece of shit “Father” Frank Pavone in telling about his conversations with the husk (who talked back at length) in the hospital and hospice. If the Catholic Church were anything other than a pedophiliac criminal syndicate, he’d have been defrocked by 2006 at the latest.
I won’t even go into a description of that lard assed giggling woman lawyer the Schindlers hired in talking about how Terri proclaimed that she wanted to live.
The Moar You Know
Not sure, but he’s going to lose. Defamation claims are almost impossible to win under normal circumstances – when the person making the claim is a public figure, the bar for defamation gets set even higher. I’d love nothing more than to see him win and pave the road outside of his driveway with their slaughtered bodies, but that is not going to happen, unfortunately.
Linda Featheringill
FWIW:
SS came through during the night.
Contrary to rumors, Reid and the Dems didn’t cave on the union-busting FAA issue. A number of people are still out of work, though.
It seems that some of the worst of the debt ceiling deal won’t take place until 2013 or later. Maybe we can amend the process.
On the super-congress committee, if both sides appoint only people they can truly trust, the committee will never agree to anything. The automatic cuts will happen but some of those were scheduled anyway.
Maybe the End is not so effin’ nigh after all.
SiubhanDuinne
@kay:
It was a moment of sublime beauty.
Well, actually, several moments of sublime beauty.
kay
@SiubhanDuinne:
I had heard so much about her, I thought she’d be this train coming down the track. Then, she was sort of a disorganized, poorly prepared moron. Just very funny to watch.
Whatever the various for-profit actors are paying her, it’s too much. Another free market failure. Maybe she’s gotten sloppy since she had such success the first time around, fighting health care. Can[‘t rest on your laurels, conservatives!
SiubhanDuinne
@kay:
Shhhh! Let them think they can and should rest on their laurels! It’ll make things that much easier for us.
kay
@The Moar You Know:
I feel as if it has value anyway. I don’t think it’s a great use of the court system, but, again, if we had some functioning fact-finder, he wouldn’t need to go to a judge.
There shouldn’t have to be a Polita-Fact. Every time I see one of those sites or services I feel as if that’s a direct acknowledgment that people aren’t getting facts. Something is badly broken. “News” is supposed to be facts.
Have you seen polling on death panels? More than 50% of old people polled think Pelosi and Obama set up a panel to kill them. Now, how did that happen? They’re brutally misinformed. They don’t have a fighting chance of making an informed decision on a vote.
cleek
@Linda Featheringill:
sorry, that’s not in the approved narrative. please rewrite.
Another Bob
As Ron Suskind wrote about what Karl Rove apparently once said to him:
Of course their “reality” is mostly bullshit in the end, but they own the marketing and communications channels, and as long as enough people believe it for long enough, it doesn’t even matter if it’s not factually true. It’s just like the whole debt-ceiling debate: made of pure bullshit, but they (the conservative powers that be) are still going to get most of everything they want, like they always do.
Catsy
@John Puma:
To be honest, this part of con law baffles me.
There are a wide number of exceptions to free speech carved out of the First Amendment, and for good reason: some kinds of speech are so harmful that they shouldn’t be protected, and aren’t.
I really don’t understand why elected representatives blatantly and knowingly lying to their constituents, or lies told in speech that is regulated by the FEC, is not one of them, and against the law. Sure, there are plenty of lies that couldn’t and shouldn’t be adjudicated in court–lies where the truth can’t be determined the way this was, by a plain and unambiguous reading of facts. But the ones that can should not be protected speech. The harm that it does to our society is incalculable.
Suffern ACE
@cleek: You’re angry. You’re supposed to be angrier than Tea Partiers now. Everyone is telling you to be Angry but you’re not? Feeling like this is all a lot of “well disappointing, sure, but really it’s nothing much” What the fuck is wrong with you? You need to be angry and frightened by this and I’m not going to stop trying to make you feel that way until you act normal.
Stefan
I really don’t understand why elected representatives blatantly and knowingly lying to their constituents, or lies told in speech that is regulated by the FEC, is not one of them, and against the law.
OK, I’ll give you one reason: it’s 2003, and a Democratic congressman goes on TV to claim that, Bush regime claims aside, Iraq does not actually possess nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. He’s then fined by the FEC for blatantly lying to his constituents, because of course only a fool — or a Frenchman — could doubt the good word of George W. Bush. That seem like a scenario you’d like to play out in real life?
Laws like this would very quickly turn into a tool used by the government to quash dissent.
lldoyle
Not sure Stephan picked a good example. The one from the case is about what a document that’s in our f***ing hands says or does not say. His example is about a president’s word.
If we’re not able to discern fundamental differences between one and the other, we’re in bad shape.
kay
@Catsy:
I think the idea was that the political debate was supposed to reveal inaccurate statements. A truth engine. But that doesn’t happen. Media waffles, out of fear, I think, and the lies stick. Democrats were fighting on so many different fronts on the health care law, it made my head spin. What’s interesting is anti-abortion forces took a huge risk. They effectively cleared out many of the anti-abortion Democrats in 2010, and they had made real inroads there.
I think that was politically a mistake. There’s no political upside to being an anti-abortion Democrat. If you vote for a Democratic initiative, they come after you, because they’re partisan Republicans more than they’re issue advocates. Short term gain, but maybe a stupid long-term decision. The idea is to get bigger, not smaller. Not slice and dice, but make new anti-abortion people.
All they’re doing is splitting the anti-abortion side. No net gain.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@Stefan:
You need definitive proof that it isn’t a lie. That proof did not exist in 2003. Slander and libel have never been protected speech.
Stefan
Not sure Stephan picked a good example. The one from the case is about what a document that’s in our f***ing hands says or does not say. His example is about a president’s word.
No, my example was about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, which was clearly and unambiguously true, and was based on reams of data from the CIA, spy satellites, on the ground sources, etc. — or so everyone said at the time. It was apparently considered enought of a fact and clear on its face to go to war on….
If we’re not able to discern fundamental differences between one and the other, we’re in bad shape.
But that’s my point — in the real world, laws that attempted to regulate a politician’s speech would quickly blur the line between one and the other. One man’s fact is another man’s lie, and which was which would soon come to depend on who was in power. Do you want to hand to power to determine whether you lied or not to Dick Cheney?
Stefan
You need definitive proof that it isn’t a lie. That proof did not exist in 2003.
Sure it did. Didn’t you see Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN? Facts galore, lots of charts and spy satellite photos and colored graphs and everything. And we had an Iraqi defector who’d actually worked in these labs and was telling us where everything was — can’t get more factual than that!
cleek
@Suffern ACE:
ok. i think i’m feeling a little more angry and frightened.
maybe that’s just low blood sugar. is it snack time?
The Moar You Know
@kay: Not according to the courts. I’m sure you’re familiar with the Florida ruling that established that the media has no duty to report facts.
Catsy
@lldoyle:
Thank you; that saved me the trouble of writing this reply.
I’m not talking about spin. I’m not talking about unprovable statements like, “if we pass this law, it will make the economy grow”. You might be able to get twenty economists to line up as expert witnesses on either side, but in the end it’s a prediction, not a factual claim. It can’t be proved or disproved.
I’m talking about plain, simple, explicit, unambiguously provable facts. Like whether or not the language in a bill provides taxpayer funding for abortions; as I recall interpreting the language of laws is a judge’s job. Or whether or not the ACA creates “death panels” to decide whether grandma lives or dies. Or “most of the Bush tax cuts don’t go to the top X%”. These are empirically evaluable statements, and they are the sort of thing politicians lie about all the time because there is no penalty for doing so.
TooManyJens
@kay:
Nothing pisses off the professional Republican anti-abortion lobby quite like pro-life Democrats. Especially the ones who want to talk about preventing abortions by preventing unintended pregnancy and funding programs that help women and children.
Republicans, being right-wingers, take an authoritarian approach to abortion; it’s wrong, pass a law against it, end of discussion. Democrats, being less authoritarian, tend to see the issue in a more nuanced way. They’ll emphasize things like prevention more, and maybe not get on board with some of the crazier laws the right-wingers come up with. To the authoritarian-minded, this means pro-life Dems aren’t really pro-life, because they differ from the One True Way of ending abortion. The second a Democrat deviates from the Republican-dictated anti-abortion script, the cries of “Traitor” start up. So they think pro-life Democrats are wolves in sheep’s clothing just trying to steal their voters.
It’s a vicious circle. Republicans are the only ones who are pure enough, so they have to keep people voting Republican, so they have to define “pro-life” as being what Republicans do, which means only Republicans are pure enough, etc.
And those are the ones who are actually somewhat *sincere* about abortion. That’s not even counting the people who don’t give a shit and just use the whole thing to drum up Republican votes so they can keep their tax breaks and avoid regulation.
Catsy
@Stefan:
Nope, not the same at all.
The kind of “evidence” Colin Powell presented to the UN would not hold up in a court of law as proof that X was lying when they said that SH does not have WMD. And the existence or absence of a secret program in a hostile foreign country is not the sort of subject that lends itself to this kind of test in a civilian court.
dpCap
@TooManyJens:
Well it should also be noted that Republicans generally want to regulate what goes on in the bedroom. If you’re a pro-life Democrat, you favor education and contraception over criminalizing abortion. But of course, that doesn’t oppress women’s rights enough so Republicans are opposed to it.
Villago Delenda Est
In Oregon, you can’t lie about your record in your voter’s pamphlet statement, as Wes Cooley discovered in the 90’s.
Northeast Elizabeth
Kay,
You accuse “conservatives and the media” of “lying” that the legislation was a takeover of the healthcare system. However:
(1) Not ALL conservative and media outlets made such claims. Therefore, YOUR statement is a lie if even one conservative or media outlet can be identified that did not make such statements.
(2) To the extent that the government would be regulating reimbursement rates and many significant aspects of healthcare coverage, it was not a “lie” to characterize it a takeover. At worst, it was an opinion. Accordingly, YOUR accusation of lying is false.
You are now subject to substantial liability, including bankrupting punitive damages, for your false statement. If this post is not immediately removed, some plaintiff may subpoena this blogs records and commence litigation against you for your willfully false statements. Even if malice is not proven, you will be required to defend yourself in protracted legal proceedings.
Villago Delenda Est
@Northeast Elizabeth:
You realize you’re a cretin, right?
Martin
Hey, we’ve wanted better trolls. She’s at least different – give her credit for that. And proper punctuation, which is always appreciated.
Omnes Omnibus
@Villago Delenda Est:
No, she doesn’t.
Steve
@sneezy:
You seem to be suggesting the First Amendment has nothing to say about libel and slander cases, which isn’t quite right. In fact, when you have a political officeholder suing one of his critics for defamation, the First Amendment imposes a very high standard for such a claim to succeed, and rightly so. That’s why, in the famous case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court said that a public figure needs to be able to prove “actual malice” in order to sue for defamation. Otherwise, if they were permitted to sue under the same standard for defamation that applies to everyone else, the First Amendment would be violated.
Steve
@Villago Delenda Est: I don’t think she’s a cretin. I think she’s using very pointed satire to illustrate that bad things can happen when you start letting people sue over political arguments. I think Kay realizes that and has addressed the nuance in this thread, but I’m not sure everyone gets it.
cleek
@Villago Delenda Est:
?
sounds to me like that would be exactly the state of discourse, if lying was illegal.
MS Word would start to ship with a “You_Lied.DOTX” template to make sending these kinds of letters easier for lawyers.
kdaug
@Martin: Yeah, credit where credit’s due. Crazy-assed logic, threats of lawsuits, and demands that the post be immediately removed, but at least she can spell.
Like an inverse m_c, in that “Spock with a goatee” kind of way.
Northeast Elizabeth
All commenters who have referred to me as a “cretin” are now subject to immediate legal action. It is an objective fact whether or not I suffer from a diagnosable mental defect. I have the legal right to subpoena all IP addresses and take action against all who criticize me.
The irony of all this is, of course, that you’re calling me a cretin precisely because such legal action would be so frivolous. Just like Driehaus’ lawsuit, and Judge Black’s decision. You don’t realize how damaging your mockery is to your own position.
Because you’re liberals. And liberals are stupid. And humorless. So sue me!
kdaug
@Steve: Could be. Don’t know if I’ve seen N.E. around before.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
“If we were real domestic terrorists,” Palin explained to host Sean Hannity, “President Obama would be wanting to pal around with us, wouldn’t he? He didn’t have a problem palling around with Bill Ayers back in the day when he kicked off his political career.”
When it comes to harsh rhetoric applied to the Tea Party the former Alaska governor said “enough is enough.” She asserted, “I’m not just going to roll over with a sticker plastered on my forehead that says, hit me baby one more time, call me a terrorist again, call me a racist. Those things that Tea Party patriots have been being called over these months. It is unfair, it’s hypocritical of the other side doing that. And enough is enough. And I’m going stand up for those fiscally conservative patriotic independent Americans who wants the best for this country.”
kay
Elizabeth,
You said all conservatives, not me
All the sba had to do was use a qualifier
They chose not to do that
There is no federal funding for abortion in the law
It is expressly disallowed, I fact
burnspbesq
@Ash Can:
Defamation isn’t protected. Never has been. Not all lies are defamatory. Simple distinction.
4tehlulz
@Northeast Elizabeth: 7/10; would read again.
Northeast Elizabeth
And seriously, if you can’t see how allowing someone to sue for a claim about death panels — when in fact the the government WILL be deciding the extent of coverage for end-of-life care — you’re beyond stupid. But let’s put the shoe on the other foot. Do you want Sarah Palin suing everyone who accused her of being an accomplice in the Tuscon shootings?
Villago Delenda Est
@Northeast Elizabeth:
Come and get me, bitch.
danimal
@Linda Featheringill:
The personnel will dictate the policy outcome. My greatest fear is that the Senate Dems will include Conrad or Baucus. Either of these two will jump at the chance to betray the Democratic base in an attempt to appease the fiscal conservatives. I’m hoping the super special uber-Congress is tied up in knots, better the enforced cuts we know than the sh!t sandwich the GOP serves up with a 7-5 vote.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
Whose da bimbo?
Villago Delenda Est
@burnspbesq:
Precisely. Truth is a bulletproof defense against a libel or slander suit.
Northeast Elizabeth
Kay,
You said “Conservatives and media” without qualification. It will be for the JURY to decide whether — despite your new claim about a qualification that DOES NOT APPEAR ON THE FACE OF YOUR STATEMENT — you intended a mass libel.
gex
The thing is, the lies get out there and affect the election well before they can be debunked. Further these organizations that traffic in FUD have an endless supply of benefactors. This group could be sued out of existence, and two more will pop up in its place.
burnspbesq
@dpCap:
“Not to be cynical but do you seriously think this won’t be appealed?”
This ruling pretty much can’t be appealed. Interlocutory appeals from rulings denying motions for summary judgment are almost never permitted. But hey, don’t let the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure get in the way of an ignorant rant.
Martin
@Stefan:
Except that it’s not a good example because you had the UN Weapons Inspectors with their own sets of facts that contradicted the CIAs facts. When you have facts in contradiction, either your data is incomplete, your interpretation is wrong, or your facts are wrong. At that point you need to resolve that situation, but instead we chose to simply dismiss the UN facts.
The reason a case like that would break down is not over the evaluation of the facts, but the access to them. Any trial that sought to bring those facts into evidence would be undermined by the CIA saying ‘state secrets’, leaving the information impossible to disprove, even if the congressman, though his own security clearance had evidence that the facts were wrong. That’s not a problem with how we evaluate what is and is not factual but the limitations that are unnecessarily placed on the court system and some bad outcomes from the courts. Rather than say ‘you can’t disprove those facts, therefore you lied’ the court should say ‘the presenters of those facts refuse to make their information available to the community for verification, therefore they are suspect, and therefore anyone can make any claims about them’.
So when some moron like John Kyl goes into Congress and says that 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions, that is information that is available to the community to disprove, and therefore can be properly evaluated.
This stuff really isn’t that hard. Scientists have been dealing for ages with the issue of how much value to put on a given set of facts, and there’s a pretty standard set of tools and practices surrounding it. It’s a bit burdensome to the layperson, but it shouldn’t in any way be a problem for the courts, who are the masters of burdening pretty much any effort.
Northeast Elizabeth
bimbo, bitch, etc . . . more lawsuits. And such misogyny! Why do liberals hate women?
Steve
@burnspbesq: Not a simple distinction, more like an utter truism. In your telling, “defamation” simply means “lies that aren’t protected by the First Amendment,” but that tells us nothing about which lies those are.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@Stefan:
No. There was plenty of evidence against the view that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Powell just left that out of the presentation to Congress. Even there, what Powell presented was suggestive, NOT definitive. You need DEFINITIVE proof, not merely suggestive evidence. Can you not tell the difference? It really isn’t that hard.
burnspbesq
@Villago Delenda Est:
Which is why the defendants moved for summary judgment. Win on truth, and there’s no discovery and no trial.
The plaintiff still has to prove that the defendants acted with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of what they said, which is no easy task.
danimal
Oh jeez, looks like I posted in the middle of a flame war. Might as well have some fun, since nothing constructive is going to come out of the rest of the thread.
Elizabeth certainly appears to be a cretin, IMHO.
I look forward to our court date.
Ash Can
@burnspbesq: I liked all the responses to my comment (seriously, no snark), but this one was particularly succinct. Thanks — and you’re right; it is simple now that I look more closely.
burnspbesq
@Steve:
Wrong. Defamation is a term with a well-understood meaning, which you would know if you had spent ten seconds on google.
Linda Featheringill
@Northeast Elizabeth:
I have found “dildo” an acceptable male version of bimbo, bitch, etc. And the meaning in this context is pretty much the same.
Why don’t you guys [and I mean men] adopt that term?
Frankensteinbeck
@danimal:
The Super Congress is a bugaboo. If nothing is decided, the safety net is safe. If they come up with something ghastly, its odds of getting through the Senate and Obama are remote. And we get to watch the GOP squirm, because what *is* scheduled to get the axe if nothing’s decided is the military budget.
@Linda Featheringill:
If by ‘some of’ you mean ‘99%’, then yep. Also, really, just exactly how reliable is congress at sticking to promises to reign in spending in *future* budgets?
Northeast Elizabeth
This ruling pretty much can’t be appealed. Interlocutory appeals from rulings denying motions for summary judgment are almost never permitted. But hey, don’t let the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure get in the way of an ignorant rant.
You say they are “almost” never permitted. This means that some ARE permitted. If so, the permitted appeals would not violate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, you have made a false statement about the law. You must be sued. And if your motion for summary judgment denied, you must almost not be permitted to appeal.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
@Linda Featheringill: You know the difference between NE and the Panama Canal?
The Panama Canal is a busy ditch.
bada bing!
Ash Can
@Northeast Elizabeth: Good for you! I HIGHLY recommend arguing with Kay. She’s lousy at arguing, especially when the argument involves legal points, and you’ll win every time. Go get her!
I’ll be right over here, with plenty of popcorn.
Yutsano
@Northeast Elizabeth:
You can sue anyone for anything at any time. It’s whether a judge decides your case has merit that matters. And since no one here made such a claim against your Saint Sarah, your argument is frivolous.
You were almost decent until you let the mask slip. But conservative trolls can’t ever help themselves.
TooManyJens
@Northeast Elizabeth: You forgot, “Neener, neener, neener.”
Hope this helps.
Northeast Elizabeth
Elizabeth certainly appears to be a cretin, IMHO.
I look forward to our court date.
Why the sarcasm about the court date? You think a lawsuit is implausible because of First Amendment protections?
gex
@gex: In the end, we’re going to need a populace that cares to put in the time and effort to understand policy proposals and listen to the claims of both sides and then do some thinking on it.
Now I haz a sad.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Raven (formerly stuckinred): Sickening but not surprising wasn’t it? That grifter relishes any opportunity to be the victim, not to mention to take a stupid shot at the President. She makes my head hurt far worse than the pituitary tumor does.
Egypt Steve
I have to say I am not down with any rule that says you can’t defame politicians, even with egregious, damn lies. If I want to say that Dick Cheney is a bloodsucking motherfucker, I don’t want to be sued because I can’t actually prove that he sucks blood and fucks his mother. I would like to be able to denounce George Bush as a war criminal who launched an illegal, aggressive war — even though he acted with Congressional consent, within statutory and constitutional law.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
@gex: rotsa ruck grasshopper
Northeast Elizabeth
Northeast Elizabeth: You forgot, “Neener, neener, neener.
You forgot “bimbo, bitch, c**t.” Why do you hate women?
Funny, I’ve been making reasons, detailed arguments and you accuse me of name-calling when all you’ve done is made false claims about me name-calling.
Now I’ll have to be lawyer-calling and starting a lawsuit.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
Who are you
doop doop doop doo
tell me who the fuck are you /
Villago Delenda Est
@Steve:
The thing is, when you intentionally misrepresent someone else’s position based on outright falsehood, that can and should be actionable.
Also, NE Liz may not be a cretin, but the argument she put forward certainly could have been written by one. Mainly because it totally misses the point of Kay’s post. The fact is, the judge ruled that the characterization of the law was false, therefore the claims made against Driehaus were defamatory, because they lied about the law that Driehaus was voting on.
Of course, the pro forced birth, punish the sluts lobby isn’t interested in fact, only in making the vile harridans pay for their crime of having sex, through forced birth.
burnspbesq
@Catsy:
Riddle me this: what regulatory body are you willing to trust with vetting political speech? Entirely apart from the fact that political speech is at the core of what the first amendment is designed to protect, that’s the practical problem. If you think you’ve got a solution, let’s hear it.
Linda Featheringill
@Raven (formerly stuckinred):
#91
[Sniff!] And after I gave you the best years of my life! [Sob!]
danimal
@Northeast Elizabeth: Any fool can sue over anything.
Your chances for success are astoundingly low, but do what you need to do.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
@Linda Featheringill: I can resist anything but temptation!
Northeast Elizabeth
You can sue anyone for anything at any time. It’s whether a judge decides your case has merit that matters. And since no one here made such a claim against your Saint Sarah, your argument is frivolous.
There’s something called a “hypothetical.” Graduate high school, go to college, then law school, and look it up.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Villago Delenda Est: See, you’re letting pesky things like nuance and actual legal procedure get in the way here, just like Judge Black did. And the 6th Circuit is not gonna take an interlocutory appeal on this. Period.
@burnspbesq: And of course, therein lies the rub, doesn’t it?
@Steve: Perhaps he meant well understood by attorneys who litigate such cases? Who probably use Lexis (or old MSJ memos) rather than teh google.
Steve
@burnspbesq: Believe me, I’ve litigated enough defamation suits to know what the term means. That doesn’t mean it has a “simple” definition, much less one expressed by the mere truism “not all lies are defamatory.” In fact, there’s reams of case law on the issue of what is and isn’t defamation – strange considering it only takes 10 seconds with Google to understand the concept, according to you!
Northeast Elizabeth
A general pointer for those who don’t want to appears stupider than they are:
When someone argues whether or not a person can “sue” for something, the issue is not whether the person can take the technical procedural step of filing a lawsuit with the clerk’s office. The question raised is always whether such a suit would have legal merit. Countering with “clever” quips like “anyone can sue” or “yeah you could sue but it would be frivilous”, don’t address the the argument. They just make you look foolish.
cleek
@Steve:
in the future, we will all be lawyers, for 15 minutes.
Omnes Omnibus
In the end, this lawsuit will probably go nowhere. Getting past summary judgment on the issue of whether the claim was untrue is doesn’t mean much.
Martin
Me either, however, I would be down with a rule that says elected officials cannot lie to the public – as Kyl did. Citizens should be able to take statements by elected officials as authoritative and true at all times. I don’t think that’s too large of a burden to put on them.
kay
Elizabeth,
The death panel decision you dishonestly described is expressy and specifaclly disallowed in the ppaca
So thats a lie
Stefan
No. There was plenty of evidence against the view that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Powell just left that out of the presentation to Congress. Even there, what Powell presented was suggestive, NOT definitive. You need DEFINITIVE proof, not merely suggestive evidence. Can you not tell the difference? It really isn’t that hard.
Look, in an ideal world, yes. But we live in the fallen world we live in, with the type of Republicans we have. If there were laws against lying by politicians, Republicans when in power would simply start defining lies as “things I don’t agree with.”
Yes, you can console yourself online with talk of DEFINITIVE proof versus suggestive evidence, but in real life, the chilling effect would be swift and immediate. You can blather on about “there was plenty of evidence against the view that there weapons” etc., but in real someone gets fined and arrested, they spend the next four years running up ruinous legal costs, and then maybe, maybe, the Roberts court doesn’t send their appeal back to an unsympathetic lower court.
It’s all well and good to harbor fantasies about banning lying, but you have to remember that half this country considers our facts to be their lies — yes, even things we claim are non-contentious and easily verifiable. I can’t imagine the mischief that would result in placing that kind of loaded weapon into their hands. To imagine they wouldn’t abuse it — and get quite cute with what they considered a “lie” — is insane.
burnspbesq
@Northeast Elizabeth:
We don’t hate women. We are utterly non-discriminatory in our hatred of stupidity, ignorance, and lies (speaking of which, got a citation to statutory language to support your claim about death panels?)
That said, if you are in fact a woman, you are a disgrace to your gender.
Northeast Elizabeth
Of course, the pro forced birth, punish the sluts lobby isn’t interested in fact
WARNING: HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE:
Let’s say a blogger accused a conservative candidate who voted in favor of a parental notification law as voting for “forced birth, punish the sluts legislation.” Suppose the law itself contained no actual provisions compelling birth or punishing sluts. Could the blogger be sued?
(Attention idiots: By “could the blogger be sued,” I mean, “would such a lawsuit have actual legal merit.”)
Ash Can
@Northeast Elizabeth: Seriously, what are you even trying to argue here? That the ACA says what you claim it does? It doesn’t, legally and demonstrably. That Driehaus’s suit has no merit? An actual, experienced, sitting judge says otherwise. That you know more about legal issues in general than the lawyers in this thread? You’ve already failed at that.
What are you trying to do here?
cleek
@Northeast Elizabeth:
would there be pie?
merrinc
Exactly! I am so tired of all the lies. If Republicans are so convinced that their policies are the very bestest and just what “the American people” want, why must they tell lies?
I wish that for the debt ceiling debate, each side’s offers had been posted on the whitehouse.gov website for 24 hours so that we could see for ourselves exactly what deals were being discussed. Instead we had that weasley Eric Cantor on our teevees, shrieking that Obama wanted to raise taxes on the middle class. We should all easily have the ability to call bullshit on all our politicians. We shouldn’t have to dig for the truth.
Ending on a happier note, I would like to thank Kay because this is the first morning in a long time that I’ve pulled up Balloon Juice and read a post that didn’t send me into despair. Thanks, Kay!
Steve
@Villago Delenda Est:
The point I’m making is that there’s a fine line between an “outright falsehood” and constitutionally protected speech when it comes to political claims. Maybe Kay is right that the claim in this case went over the line. I don’t have a problem with that argument and I’m not saying the case was wrongly decided.
The claim in this case was that the ACA includes “taxpayer funding for abortion,” which in theory is a straightforward claim about what is or isn’t in a bill. Okay. But this can get complicated.
Democrats say Republicans voted to end Medicare. Is that a lie? Is it legally actionable? Some people seem to think it makes a huge difference if they instead say “end Medicare as we know it.” Could a judge issue a ruling that says “Whether the Ryan budget ends Medicare is a factual claim that can be judged true or false. And since the Medicare program would continue under the Ryan budget, albeit with significant changes, I find the statement to be false.” Now that wouldn’t be very nice! And you can scream all day that a voucherized Medicare program isn’t Medicare any longer, but too bad, the judge has ruled. Remember, Reagan and Bush appointed a lot of judges!
Let’s say the claim in this case had instead been that the ACA will result in more taxpayer-funded abortions than before, ergo “Driehaus voted for more taxpayer-funded abortions.” Now you and I might still call that a lie, but is it falsifiable as a legal matter? The other side might say, “Look, you want to narrowly define taxpayer-funded abortion, but to us, any time tax dollars go to an organization that provides abortions, that’s taxpayer-funded abortion because money is fungible. And under the ACA, more taxpayer money will go to such organizations because blah blah whatever.” My point is that if they can tweak the statement to such a minor extent and it’s no longer actionable defamation, this case doesn’t stand for much except the proposition that you have to at least leave yourself a teensy tiny bit of wiggle room.
Lolis
@Northeast Elizabeth:
Ok now your grammar is just getting sloppy:
A general pointer for those who don’t want to appears stupider than they are:
As far as trolls go I miss Derf. NE Elizabeth writes very authoritatively for someone with absolutely nothing important to say. But then I guess women right wingers absolutely bore me. Is it the Daddy issues?
ed drone
@Northeast Elizabeth:
My mama always said, “Handsome is as handsome does.”
Ed
Yevgraf
I’ve never understood why the protection of the ability to tell deliberate lies about political opponents is so sacrosant to the Conservative[spit] mind. The right to disseminate bullshit and propaganda in the name of Jesus is not an indication of the USA being the New Jerusalem (or pick any of your “bright, shining beacon of freedom” images you want).
By this standard, Joe Goebbels was the most free man who ever lived.
Steve
@cleek: The truth is that, as a practicing lawyer, I use Google a ton in my legal research! Being a lawyer helps me distinguish the useful search results from the misinformation… somewhat. News flash, your doctor googles your symptoms, too!
danimal
@Northeast Elizabeth:
When mocking others for appearing foolish, it’s usually a wise course of action to use proper grammar.
Legalize
@Northeast Elizabeth:
No it won’t. Any claim for “mass libel” would be bounced on a 12(b)(6) motion in 15 minutes.
Lex
@kay: Actually, as a journalist for 25 years who got threatened a lot more than he got sued, I can assure that the bar on summary judgment in defamation cases is pretty high, and properly so. The courts, at least in the past few decades, have been reluctant to let cases go to trial unless there have been serious questions about both really bad behavior and real harm.
That does not, of course, mean Driehaus is likely to get anywhere. Depositions may not turn up anything substantive regarding either intentional or reckless disregard for the truth. Even if it does, this case still may never see a jury. And even if it gets to a jury, you never know what a jury might do.
On top of that, defendants might well be able to convince a jury that their client wasn’t malicious or reckless, it was just an honest misunderstanding of the language of the statute, the judge’s initial finding notwithstanding — i.e., the “We’re not evil, we’re just stupid” defense. A lot of juries buy that crap.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Legalize: That’s on a really busy day. On a slow motion review day it would only take 5.
Mike Lamb
@Northeast Elizabeth: No. Defamation has to be a statement of fact. The liberal blogger is arguing about his opinion regarding the effect of the legislation. The difference with Driehaus’ counterclaim (please note that he did not initiate the lawsuit, despite your characterization, but rather that was the SBA List who filed) is that the ACA specifically provides that no tax monies will pay for abortions.
Villago Delenda Est
@Northeast Elizabeth:
I give you the vile ought to be disbarred cretin called Orly Taitz.
Amir_Khalid
I doubt that Northeast Elizabeth is doing satire. A satirist would have admitted to it, if there were angry commenters not getting the satire — that’s how it usually works around here.
@Northeast Elizabeth:
Unless you are in fact preparing to litigate against Balloon Juice and its commenters, you yourself are making empty threats that undermine your credibility.
It would be nice if lying in political discourse were a crime. But I don’t know of any country where this is so, and I don’t see how such a law would be enforceable. Besides, politicians everywhere, in office or seeking it, do occasionally need to, um, economize on the truth. Of course they like having the flexibility to do so.
The news media everywhere works under deadline pressure. and it would be unpractical to put every last little story through a fact-checking desk after the copy editors were done with it. Readers and TV audiences want today’s news today; indeed, they want this minute’s news right this minute.
Northeast Elizabeth
Seriously, what are you even trying to argue here? That the ACA says what you claim it does? It doesn’t, legally and demonstrably. That Driehaus’s suit has no merit? An actual, experienced, sitting judge says otherwise.
Yes, I’m saying that Driehaus’ suit lacks merit, that the judge’s decision was shallow and politically-motivated, and that the action will be tossed out on the law on appeal, whether interlocutory or otherwise. The opinion is about as offensive to First Amendment principles as one can get. I can’t see how any criticism of a political candidate could be allowed if a pro-life can be sued for criticizing the act for funding abortion.
And no, I’m not interested in your idiot argument about whether the act has a specific clause stating that “taxpayer funds shall be used to fund abortion.” But if you do want to have that argument, please opine on whether a pro-choice group could be sued for accusing a candidate of supporting “forced birth, punish the slut” legislative if the parental notification law in question lacked such literal provisions.
P.S. Arguments from authority, i.e., “experienced, sitting judge” also don’t interest me. I saw very few such descriptions of the Supreme Court judges in the majority of Citizens United, and they were certainly brighter than this judge Black. But as long as we’re going down that road, I’ll point out that as in Citizens United, the ACLU was on the side of free speech in the Dreihaus case too.
Legalize
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q):
Well, I was assuming federal court. ;) The NE Liz Creetin is also opening herself up to an abuse of process counterclaim and Rule 11 sanctions.
Which would be hilarious. I suspect that every local bar has morons like NE Liz.
Yutsano
Well at least I know for sure Northeast Elizabeth is just hippie punching now and therefore not serious. Another troll earning RedState troll badges. It was an okay run for a bit…
Northeast Elizabeth
Unless you are in fact preparing to litigate against Balloon Juice and its commenters, you yourself are making empty threats that undermine your credibility.
Exactly my POINT, Bozo.
SiubhanDuinne
@Northeast Elizabeth:
Oh for fuck’s sake. If you’re a troll, you stopped being amusing half a dozen comments back. If you’re for real, you are indeed a cretin.
Either that, or you need a big ol’ hug.
Comrade Mary
All cretins are from the northeast.
Northeast Elizabeth
<Well at least I know for sure Northeast Elizabeth is just hippie punching now and therefore not serious. Another troll earning RedState troll badges. It was an okay run for a bit…
Hippies usually favor free speech.
Hippie punching = reasoned disagreement with a leftist.
Frankensteinbeck
I really don’t think Northeast Elizabeth is conservative or a troll. She’s trying to use mildly satirical examples to argue that it would be dangerous to let courts enforce any standard of truth in politics. She may or may not be wrong. People who did not recognize the snark started the name calling.
That’s how I read it! She’s only trying to argue the danger of enforcing the truth in an environment where people believe the sky is green.
Northeast Elizabeth
Oh for fuck’s sake. If you’re a troll, you stopped being amusing half a dozen comments back. If you’re for real, you are indeed a cretin.
This kind of generic, vacuous, unresponsive, argument-free accusation of trolling became uninteresting in 2004.
To redeem yourself, please opine on whether a pro-choice group could be sued for accusing a candidate of supporting “forced birth, punish the slut” legislation if the parental notification law in question lacked such literal provisions.
SiubhanDuinne
Actually, I prefer lemon meringue pie.
merrinc
Wow, I’m glad I commented before reading the thread. Between the trollfest and catching up on the rays of sunshine Steve Benen had to spread this morning (no FAA resolution, no recess appointments), my mental state is now where it usually is this time of day. I think I’ll go read a relaxing novel about crazed serial killers or something.
Davis X. Machina
It ought to be next to impossible to defame a political figure.
If someone made a false-on-its-face claim in a floor speech that didn’t attack the person or character of another member, there’s no Westminster parliamentary body in the world that would toss them out. Chances are you couldn’t even get the false claim stricken from the record.
On the contrary, if you got up and called the lying bastard a ‘lying bastard’, you’d be sanctioned, even if he’s a lying bastard.
Parliamentary privilege — it’s there for a reason.
SiubhanDuinne
@Northeast Elizabeth:
Actually, I prefer lemon meringue pie.
Mike Lamb
@Northeast Elizabeth: You’re not interested in what the law that forms the basis of criticism has to say? Which is to say, people can say any damn thing, irrespective of truth, and have that speech protected by the First Amendment?
You can’t see the difference in a situation where a law is silent as to a given issue (i.e. ACA didn’t say one way or the other whether tax money would be used to pay for abortion) and when there is an explicit provision directly to the contrary of a group’s characterization of the legislation?
chopper
@Northeast Elizabeth:
I love it when idiots with no real understanding of law make broad associations between different situations.
no, numb nuts, Kay would not ever be subject to a claim by ‘conservatives and the media’, as neither of the latter would be able to bring forth anything remotely constituting damages suffered.
Amir_Khalid
@SiubhanDuinne:
Don’t forget to give her a cookie and a balloon as well — the latter green, per Balloon Juice tradition.
Chyron HR
@Northeast Elizabeth:
This kind of generic, vacuous, unresponsive, argument-free threatening of lawsuits became uninteresting on August 3, 2011.
To redeem yourself, please actually file one of these lawsuits you keep screaming about, or change your name and start over.
trollhattan
@Northeast Elizabeth:
Ooh, ooh, hell yes! Can you imagine what the defense would turn up in discovery? Bring that mess on!
As to the rest of thy ramblings, new troll needs some work. See BOB for lessons on stirring up the BJ mob, and don’t forget to axe him his views on the womenfolk.
dpCap
@burnspbesq:
Thanks for being a douche. You’re right, an interlocutory appeal won’t happen now, but presumably the case will go forward to a trial whereupon it appears as thought the plaintiff will prevail.
THEN THERE WILL BE AN APPEAL. It will likely go to the Roberts court whereupon Kennedy will be the tie-breaker as usual. What will Kennedy do? I dunno, I can’t figure the guy out. But if it’s anything like Citizens United, I’m sure it will be a ruling in favor of the SBA List.
Xenos
@Lex:
Keep in mind that you are dealing with people who take it as a matter of religious doctrine that life begins at conception, and won’t even try to reconcile this doctrine with the fact that conception and pregnancy are not the same thing. Stupidity – stubborn-headed, mule-like stupidity – is painfully evident.
WaterGirl
I want to donate to the remaining 6 democratic candidates in the recall election on august 8, but I don’t know which ones those are on the BJ act blue page. Does anybody know? 5 minutes of googling did not get me the 6 remaining names.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
So, I’ve always heard the “When did you stop beating your wife?” question is considered illegal, because it implies something bad but the speaker can throw up his hands and say “It’s just something I heard.” And it leaves something in the listeners mind that can’t be made to easily go away.
For the lawyer types here, is this considered defamatory, and if so, then how is this case different, since the person in question is an anti-abortion Democrat.
Bokonon
Hey … Northeast Elizabeth?
Thanks so much for joining our forum.
Although we appreciate your efforts to educate us about the meaning of words like “hypothetical,” and your suggestions that some of us are either stupid or lack sufficient education, I think you are lacking some significant things of your own.
Like … grasping the difference between argument and insult. Or the difference between convincing people and punching them on the nose. That sort of stuff doesn’t work, even if the supposed targets are “liberals”.
Maybe ad hominem attacks and political screeds work when you are hanging out with a bunch of other right-wing fellow travelers (who all agree with each other). But the rest of us are not here to be abused and shrieked at by someone copping a pose of being all-knowing and all-superior. Do you really expect us to cower in awe? Or be impressed when you wave your gender around, and claim that “liberals hate women” when we push back on the BS that you are flinging around?
You have made a fool of yourself in record time. Now … go away. Buh-bye. Really.
Unless, of course, you are being paid to troll this forum. In which case, I suppose we are stuck with you.
Northeast Elizabeth
You’re not interested in what the law that forms the basis of criticism has to say? Which is to say, people can say any damn thing, irrespective of truth, and have that speech protected by the First Amendment?
You can’t see the difference in a situation where a law is silent as to a given issue (i.e. ACA didn’t say one way or the other whether tax money would be used to pay for abortion) and when there is an explicit provision directly to the contrary of a group’s characterization of the legislation?
No, really, I’m NOT interested such discussions of the literal terms of legislation in the context of heated political contests! Not in the least! I’m interested in free speech! And hey — the Affordable Care Act SPECIFICALLY SAYS it’s “Affordable!” Should a group be sued for criticizing a candidate for claiming that the act will make healthcare more expensive, despite what it explicitly says? It would be a LIE! The act says AFFORDABLE in its title!!!!!!!!!
In fact, I do think groups should be able to LIE about a law’s express term. Let’s suppose the recently passed deficit act said that “No legislator shall be permitted to propel a cylindrical container down a public thoroughfare by use of his or her foot.” Despite that provision, I would allow a group to say that a candidate voted on an act that permitted “kicking the can down the road”! I really would!
Lex
@Xenos: Quite so. And having had some professional dealings with James Bopp — I once published a front-page story in which I caught him misrepresenting the contents of his own complaint, apparently because he presumed I wouldn’t read it — I wouldn’t put it past him.
Violet
Where have our front pagers gone?
Catsy
@burnspbesq:
I think you have me confused with someone else. I never suggested any kind of regulatory body for vetting political speech. I am speaking very specifically and narrowly of holding statements of unambiguous, empirically falsifiable fact by political candidates or office-holders to a higher standard of truth that has the weight of law behind it.
All of this nonsense about criminalizing lies and political speech and who gets to determine what’s true is just that: nonsense. Certain kinds of falsehoods are already prohibited by law. Perjury is a crime. Fraud is a crime. Lying to the police is a crime. It’s not as if there isn’t already a vast body of case law and precedent for how to handle the question of prosecuting falsehoods, or how to separate lies about provable facts from differences of opinion and protected speech. Judges do it all the time.
So here’s one solution to chew on: all public statements by elected office-holders are considered to be under oath. They can lie to their family and friends, they can lie to their doctor, but if they give a speech or go on television, or send out a solicitation email to their supporters, they’re held to the same standard of truthfulness as if they were testifying in a court of law. If they lie to the public, they are perjuring themselves.
Northeast Elizabeth
Thanks so much for joining our forum . . . etc.
Is there an argument about the topic at hand in there somewhere that I missed? Didn’t think so.
YAAAAAAAAAAAAWN.
The Populist
I smell a trend brewing. YES (fist pump). IF you want to challenge anybody on ideas, fine. If you are going to make shit up and think that because it’s just a politician you can get away with it, there should be legal consequences awaiting you for defamation and outright lying.
burnspbesq
@dpCap:
Still waiting for you to articulate a ground on which the Supremes would have reason to grant cert, other than because they are right-wing yahoos who will never pass up an opportunity to fuck the American people. That may be true, but it isn’t normally a reason to grant cert.
And if I’m a douchebag for pointing out a poorly-thought-out rant, then fill me with solution and let me do my thing.
Egypt Steve
@Yevgraf: I think the ability to lie about political opponents ought to be sacrosanct, period, to all of us. Example: I happily say that the Rethugs are forcing draconian budget cuts in order to tank the economy and ensure Obama’s defeat in 2012.
I think this is an arguable case, based on externally observable facts, but I could be wrong — they may be sincere in doing what they believe is best for the country. But who cares? Since I can’t read their reptile minds, I don’t actually know my claim to be false, and therefore it technically does not count as a “lie.” Nevertheless, I must be honest with myself, and recognize that when I make this claim, I do so with reckless disregard for whether it is literally true or not. And I surely regard my right to engage politically in this way as sacrosanct. HST said it: if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Three-nineteen
@WaterGirl: Bob Wirch and Jim Holperin are the Democratic senators defending themselves against a recall – their elections are on Aug 16th. The other Democrats on that page are challenging the Republican senators being recalled and their elections are on Aug 9th.
Omnes Omnibus
@Northeast Elizabeth: In my opinion, this is just sad. N.E. appears to have skimmed two or three chapters of H.L.A. Hart’s The Concept of Law and, on that basis alone, decided that she understands all aspects of jurisprudence. It is a good book, a valuable book, but, as the man says, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Poopyman
Wow. Five hours without a new posting. Our front pagers must be exhausted after the debt ceiling debacle. And now we’re stuck with some asshole troll.
If this keeps up, I’m going to have to actually do some work. Nice going, guys!
Omnes Omnibus
@Poopyman: I demand a thread in honor of my birthday, damn it.
burnspbesq
@Catsy:
No, I haven’t confused you with anyone else. You’re the one who didn’t suggest an enforcement mechanism for the new rules you wanted to promulgate.
Now that you have suggested an enforcement mechanism, I’ll respond and say your proposed enforcement mechanism is crazy and unworkable.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Violet: I was wondering the same thing. You know what will happen though: We’ll get two entries from Doug; one from Tom, ABL, and Anne; and 6 from John in a matter of 5 minutes when we’re all on our way home.
Northeast Elizabeth
May I have an advisory opinion?
Let’s say that in the 2012 presidential campaign, a candidate accuses Obama of having supported same-sex marriage when he ran for state office in 1996. This might threaten Obama’s livelihood (i.e. re-election), especially since he has repeatedly stated on videotape and elsewhere that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. And for at least three years, Obama’s spokespeople had been insisting that he didn’t sign the 1996 questionnaire supporting same-sex marriage, although that denial is now is doubt.
Can Obama sue if he loses?
Catsy
@Frankensteinbeck:
I neither know nor care what NEE’s politics are, but she is most definitely behaving like a troll. More specifically, she’s behaving like a flaming bitch on roller skates who learned how to argue in grade school and hasn’t learned a whole lot about persuasion since. Worse, she’s consistently misrepresenting people’s arguments, paraphrasing them in ways that change their meaning or intent, begging the question, conflating completely different things and eliding critical nuances, and substituting belligerence for reason.
If she’s trying to make any kind of useful point or change anyone’s mind, she’s failing miserably.
rachel
@Catsy:
If I were running for office, for teh lulz I’d insist on a police protection detail, and I’d remind my opponent(s) of this at every opportunity. “See this guy? he’s a cop! Tell it to him, and remember it’s a crime to lie to cops!”
Martin
@Omnes Omnibus: Happy birthday! One of my staff has a bday today, so we’re loaded up with cake. I’ll have a bite in your honor.
Poopyman
@Omnes Omnibus: Dude! Happy Birthday! IMO you deserve a thread in honor of your birthday.
The Populist
@burnspbesq:
Excuse me? Political speech is where I say my opponent wore a diaper and frequented Prostitutes so don’t elect him. Political speech is where I say that my opponent has no idea of what job creation means. I can say those things in a political environment. It’s when some astroturf/advocacy group MAKES SHIT UP about my record or that I voted for abortion when the bill CLEARLY HAS ZERO FUNDING FOR ABORTION that is wrong.
Sorry, if you are going to LIE about something, especially when we know the majority of voters don’t know shit about anything, you’d better be able to back it up.
Nobody is saying a fucktard like Rush is gonna be sued. He has a right to his “opinions” but I think we need to weigh the idea of lying outright to the voters as a form of defamation.
Say I run for office on a platform that guns are bad and that the NRA is scum. I can do that. Now if they come back and say I am a s-list, com mie idiot that is their right. NOW, if I vote for a gun control law and they want to say that I voted to take every gun out of the hands of law abiding citizens and for that I am an enemy, that may go a bit far. Let’s say some tea bagger group says I should have bricks thrown through my window for voting for something the NRA says I did but I did not, I should be able to sue for the damage that has been done to my character as well as my reputation. See, I voted to ban CERTAIN guns, not ALL guns. The bill isn’t taking guns away from law abiding people it is keeping certain types of guns from freaks, so why can’t they just point out that and say I am still wrong?
The problem here is that these groups are getting away with big time distortions and defamation. See, when I am no longer a congresscritter, I have to still live my life and have people associate ME with something some dipshit group made up about me. WRONG.
Northeast Elizabeth
@Northeast Elizabeth: In my opinion, this is just sad. N.E. appears to have skimmed two or three chapters of H.L.A. Hart’s The Concept of Law and, on that basis alone, decided that she understands all aspects of jurisprudence. It is a good book, a valuable book, but, as the man says, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
This does not address the issue raised by this post. To redeem yourself, please opine on whether a pro-choice group could be sued for accusing a candidate of supporting “forced birth, punish the slut” legislation if the parental notification law in question lacked such literal provision.
Violet
@Omnes Omnibus:
Happy Birthday! Hope you are having a good day. I know things are a bit challenging for you right now, but take a little time to celebrate yourself and enjoy the day.
Omnes Omnibus
@Martin: @Poopyman: Thank you.
Poopyman
So in case the front pagers are bereft of material, here’s a couple of ideas:
‘Largest series of cyber-attacks’ reported
Economy woes hit Wall St; S&P at new low for year
coupled with
MasterCard profit jumps 33 percent, beats Street
Mike Lamb
@Northeast Elizabeth: Jesus you are a dope, and I don’t know why I am continuing to do this–“affordable” is not an objective term. Idiot. But at least you are on record as saying that lying is a-ok if it’s in the political context. Fuckwit.
Martin
@Catsy:
OT. But I had a ‘what the fuck is going on!’ moment last night when my son asked me if you were okay from your accident. It took about 10 minutes to piece everything together, but I pointed him at your flickr stream a year ago to see your Lego work and he noticed your accident photos yesterday and then asked me out of the blue, and could not work out how all the connections fit together on that information.
So, now I have to ask – are you okay from your accident? Looks more of an annoying accident than damaging.
arguingwithsignposts
Doesn’t Canada have some law against lying in electoral campaigns?
Catsy
@burnspbesq:
Oh, okay. So when you asked me which regulatory body I would trust with vetting political speech, you weren’t confusing me with someone else, you merely managed to completely miss the part of my first comment where I said that this sort of lie should be “against the law” and “adjudicated in court”. Or the many places where I made it clear I was talking about a burden of proof that would hold up in a court of law. That is a completely different animal than setting up some kind of government truth-finding agency, or making it a subject of fines from the dysfunctional FEC. Which I’d expect you to know.
With arguments this reasoned and persuasive, you must be a real hoot in the courtroom.
Omnes Omnibus
@Northeast Elizabeth: Good lord.
Northeast Elizabeth
she’s behaving like a flaming bitch on roller skates
So CLEVAH! So PERSUASIVE!! So very “to the point” on the topic of this post, addressing LIKE A LASER the free speech issues involved in imposing sanctions on a pro-life group for stating that a candidate voted for a law that permitted taxpayer funded abortions when it actually did not permit them.
Amir_Khalid
@Omnes Omnibus:
Happy birthday. I turned fifty on the 17th, and Barack Hussein Obama does the same tomorrow. So you’re in fine birthday-celebrating company.
The Populist
@Catsy:
I run against an opponent and I call him a job destroying idiot. Political speech.
I vote for a bill and the press, commentators and such want to label it evil and bad for America. Political speech.
If you run ads saying I am voting for something in which I did not? NOT political speech, an attempt to deceive and therefore damaging defamation.
BIG difference.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Omnes Omnibus: Happy Birthday.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ;;;;;; ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ???!!! ,,,,,,,
(It was the only gift I could think of)
Maude
@Violet:
I don’t know,but we are on our own and we can do what we want.
Martin
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
And 4 of those will be Cole declaring he’s going galt.
The Populist
@arguingwithsignposts:
Yes, they do. Candidates still engage in he said she said wedge issue political wrangling.
The problem here is with Citizens United allowing so much “free speech” that these people are now LYING to get their opponents out of office. Sorry, there has to be some limits much as I can’t go around making shit up about my neighbors without fear of being sued.
Omnes Omnibus
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): Thank you, but do you really mean to say you couldn’t think of Scotch?
Northeast Elizabeth
@Northeast Elizabeth: Good lord.
The meaning of this comment is so SELF-EVIDENT and PERSUASIVE and NON-TROLLING and INFORMATIVE!!!! Thank you for your VALUABLE input!
Jewish Steel
@Omnes Omnibus: Happy Birthday, Oh Squared!
Poopyman
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): You big spender, you.
Still, at least it’s a needed gift. :^)
arguingwithsignposts
@Omnes Omnibus: Here’s the happy birthday dance:
-0- !0!
At least you got moved before the birthday.
ETA: Apparently FYWP is borking my symbols.
Catsy
@The Populist:
I don’t see where we disagree in any meaningful way. The first two are opinions which can’t be empirically evaluated. The last is a (counter-)factual statement which can. The first two are and should be protected; the last one is and shouldn’t be.
Was this a rebuttal or concurrence?
Poopyman
WAIT! Yonder rises a new post. Must check ….
chopper
@Northeast Elizabeth:
the debt ceiling law is silent as to federal funding for abortion either way. would it not be a lie to state that the law expressly funds abortions with federal dollars?
if that lie demonstrably ruined a person’s reputation and/or cost them their job, would they not have standing to sue under libel or slander provisions? of course. if they can demonstrate real damages, they have good standing.
since he’s a politician, the threshold for libel is higher. but it still exists.
The Populist
If we all have to live with the concept of Citizens United, there should be some rules for advertising. Since an ad that can make shit up can ruin careers as well as personal lives, I think it should be stated that if you run an ad with a lie in it, you can be sued. PERIOD. Opinion is always okay, nobody should be sued for an opinion or an observation but to say some congresscritter VOTED for abortion in a bill that had nothing of the sort is defamation, clear and simple.
Time for people to demand that this type of “free speech” is the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater…you can’t have the right to change an election by using LIES to sell your POV.
Maude
@Omnes Omnibus:
Happy birthday and many more.
We forgot to welcome NE with our special hello of DIAF.
We have been remiss. Shame on us.
The Populist
@Catsy:
Concurrence/support post.
Catsy
@Northeast Elizabeth:
Good grief, I can’t imagine why you’re drawing so much ire here. You couldn’t be less persuasive if you actually set out with the intent of discrediting your argument. Do you have any self-awareness whatsoever?
Perhaps when you’re done plucking the low-hanging fruit of my insults for the pleasure of seeing your own words in print, you’d care to address the actual arguments of substance that I and others have put forward–without blatantly misrepresenting them.
Poopyman
Now TWO new posts above.
It begins.
Three-nineteen
@Northeast Elizabeth:
“ACA didn’t say one way or the other whether tax money would be used to pay for abortion”
@Northeast Elizabeth:
“…free speech issues involved in imposing sanctions on a pro-life group for stating that a candidate voted for a law that permitted taxpayer funded abortions”
From the original post:
If the post got the wording in the ad correct, you are mis-characterizing the anti-choice group’s statement.
Number one, permitting taxpayer-funded abortions and not saying one way or the other about taxpayer-funded abortions are different things, so you are contradicting yourself.
Number two, both of your statements are different from the stated ad quote, which says that the ACA includes (my emphasis) taxpayer funding for abortions. The ad quote seems to be correct, because it aligns with the judge’s ruling that “the express language of the PPACA does not provide for taxpayer funded abortion” (again my emphasis).
chopper
@Northeast Elizabeth:
you’re conflating a statement as to what is a person’s held belief with a statement as to what is written in a law. the former is very difficult to demonstrate, the latter is quite easy. you look at the words in the law. is there anything at all about funding abortion? no. case closed.
BlizzardOfOz
Even by the brain-dead standards of a BJ Obot, this is pretty lame. How exactly can anything about a 1000-page bill restructuring a convoluted multi-billion dollar be “clear on its face”. What, because Obama told you? Idiot.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Omnes Omnibus: I see your point, counselor. I could think of Scotch, but it’s much harder to hand over across the web.
Nutella
Because “every major pro-life organization in the country along with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” are liars.
SATSQ
chopper
@Three-nineteen:
most notably, the president issued an executive order concurrent with the ACA that affirms that the hyde amendment applies to it and thus no federal dollars may be used to cover abortion services.
so you have a law which does not allow federal funds to cover abortion services, and an executive order clearly stating that the law cannot possibly use federal dollars to cover abortion services. and a judge just read the law and said ‘shit, there’s no abortion funding in this thing’. clearly, reasonable people can disagree. amirite?
Catsy
@Martin: Thanks for your concern, and please relay that to your son as well. I’m fine, but the car is totaled. I’m looking at replacing it with an ’04 Prius.
Steve
I am also confused about how a politician would prove causation and damages in a case like this. Damages are the loss of an election, I guess (if he lost campaign donations, that would be a loss to the campaign and not himself personally). But how would you prove that you lost the election because of this specific lie, as opposed to any of the myriad reasons why someone might have voted for your opponent? It seems like a difficult case for many reasons.
chopper
@Steve:
that would be the difficult part. it could be demonstrated tho.
burnspbesq
@Catsy:
Has it escaped your notice that at the state and local level, prosecutors, the people that you will be entrusting to enforce your new rules on campaign speech, are themselves elected officials, whose impartiality can reasonably be called into question? Based on that alone, I’d say “crazy and unworkable” is a fine summary of my argument.
The Populist
@Steve:
No. He is also a person and for that he has to LIVE with this advertising like a dark cloud. He’s pro-life, they ran an ad saying he voted for government funded abortion. He could have lost friends, standing in his church, etc.
It’s more than just the politics.
Catsy
@BlizzardOfOz:
You know what, you’re right–we can’t trust prosecutors to prosecute perjury cases, we can’t trust judges (who in many cases are themselves elected) to decide whether statements of straightforward fact are perjurious or not, and our system just isn’t set up to handle a situation where a prosecutor or politician has broken the law.
There are times when I think the commentariat here is too hard on you. But then you come out with purest crystallized horseshit like this which makes me wonder how you ever managed to pass the bar.
burnspbesq
@Catsy:
That’s a blatant mischaracterization of what I said.
I’m not the one who went off half-cocked with a poorly-thought-through idea that’s full of holes, and went into ad hominem freakout mode when called on it.
I don’t know why I wasted my time on you.
The Populist
@BlizzardOfOz:
Wow, the cleverness and intelligence is just oozing from your post. O-bots? Please. Whatever Ditto-bot. Run back to Rush and tell him what you did! He’d be so proud!!!
The Populist
@burnspbesq:
Huh? The poster was responding to a troll named Blizzard of Oz and not you. Why so upset???
dpCap
@burnspbesq:
Actually, given your responses to everyone else here I’d say you’re an asshole on top of it. You could have just had a response pointing out why you disagreed with me instead of being a troll, but no, you’re an asshole and you can’t help it.
Besides how do YOU know what goes through the minds of the US Supreme court when they grant cert? Are you some kind of fucking divine?
Secondly, my rant, was just a cynical attempt at point out the US Supreme Court is biased. Duh. Did you really expect anything else on Balloon Juice?
Nutella
@The Populist:
Is it possible in a case like this where the damages are not financial that the punishment can also not be financial? That is, can the punishment be not an $X fine or $X damages paid to Driehaus but $X spent on a publicity campaign saying “We lied. The law Driehaus voted for does not include abortions. We lied about that and we apologize to him and the public for lying”? Or is that not legally do-able?
grandpajohn
@Omnes Omnibus: Ahh Yes one of my favorite quotations by Pope .I especially like the last part of the quote. “Drinking shallowly intoxicates the brain, but drinking deeply sobers us again”. Another one that applies well here on this blog is ” All is infected that the infected spy, as all is yellow to the Jaundiced eye”
Even hundreds of years ago, intelligent, talented people were able to understand the foibles of the masses.
Kay
@BlizzardOfOz:
It’s not a bill, it’s a law, and the abortion provisions are clear on their face. I don’t really understand your point here.
Is it your belief that a judge can’t read a statute, because it’s “too long”? Where did you come up with that? Is it from the nonsense that the Tea Party were spouting?
They just go to the provision that concerns abortion. The tax code is really long too. Judges read it.
Did the conservative judges who ruled that the law is unconstitutional read it? Or was it “too long”?
I think that’s adorable. Conservatives believe NO ONE can possibly read the law, because they’re too lazy to read it. Everyone who is applying the law is reading it, right now, today! It’s amazing, right? Almost SUPERHUMAN reading a law, right?