I see our venerated Supreme Court opening another box of Pandora’s unmentionables. They, in the person of Mr. Thomas, a Constitutional scholar of limited repute, have announced that they will review a case concerning Ohio’s law banning knowingly false political statements about candidates.
Unfortunately, Freedom of Speech has to include the freedom to state an opinion that others consider a prevarication to some degree.
Proving that something is a demonstrable lie and is known to be false by the person speaking would require something in short supply, the Wisdom of Solomon.
I am all for being truthful, especially in political advertisements both by opposing candidates as well as our guardians of Democracy operating on the invisible and often abused public airwaves. In fact, I prefer truth in all my dealings, but accept that what one person considers to be biblical truth, others with somewhat more realistic views and possibly a better education might just consider to be warmed over myths from the days of Gilgamesh.
How, in the Celestial Teapot’s name would one judge a statement after the fact when the accused liar says, “Well, not only did I believe my comments were true when I spoke them, I still, despite what adversaries say, believe my remarks are essentially pure, unvarnished truth.”
Can anyone imagine any real benefit to further involving our already overworked courts in such Tomfoolery or our underworked Congress in fashioning additional exceptions to whatever clumsily worded legislation they produce to protect their most generous special interests pay for?
© 2014, Charlie Jensen, All Rights Reserved