You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Land of the Free
Federal judge rejects Ohio law requiring truth in political advertising
2014-09-12
A federal judge struck down Ohio's campaign truth squad Thursday, issuing a significant First Amendment decision that pushes the state out of the business of trying to referee "political truth" in campaign advertising.
Even the most liberal judge in the country could not have approved this...
One man's truth is another man's flaming trousers.
Judge Black's ruling closes out a four-year-old lawsuit that began when the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life political group, wanted to post billboards accusing an incumbent U.S. House Democratic lawmaker of having voted to support government funding for abortion because he voted for Obamacare. Then-Rep. Steve Driehaus challenged the billboards under an Ohio law that declared it illegal to publish or broadcast "a false statement concerning the voting record" of a candidate. The law also gives the power to decide truth and falsehood to the state elections commission.
Of course he challenged it using a new law that warped the 1st amendment. That's what progressives do...
Judge Black, an Obama appointee to the bench, spotted several problems with the law. But he said the biggest objection is that in political speech, it's not always possible to tell truth and falsehood and that judgment should be left to voters, not the government.
Posted by:DarthVader

#4  Double-edged sword, especially given the number of low-information voters.

That is what the Dhimocrats depend on and why public schooling is little more than indoctrination nowdays.
Posted by: DarthVader   2014-09-12 17:52  

#3  Double-edged sword, especially given the number of low-information voters.
Posted by: Pappy   2014-09-12 17:29  

#2   "judgment should be left to voters, not the government."

Unless, of course, it deals with banning same sex marriage or abortion or et al. We don't need no stinking plebiscites!
Posted by: Procopius2k   2014-09-12 16:21  

#1  The real suprise here is that an Obama appointee said in a court ruling "judgment should be left to voters, not the government."

That's a shocker! I wonder how he slipped past the leftist vetting process?
Posted by: OldSpook   2014-09-12 15:15  

00:00