Ryan Gill ([info]montieth) wrote,
@ 2008-09-27 13:49:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Obama Truth Squad. Now with Law Enforcement!
The Obama Campaign in at least Missouri is using local law enforcement to get out the message. Specifically to respond to ads that are aired and the campaign deems is false. They're using at least two district attorneys, sheriffs officers and police.

Law enforcement figures as part of your campaign truth squad? 1st Amendment principles? Sure they haven't violated it yet, but they're veering dangerously close. What effect would you expect if a sheriffs officer came by and had words with your company on the content of your news story or advertisement?

(Post a new comment)


[info]the_siobhan
2008-09-27 06:35 pm UTC (link)
Does the first ammendment protect slander and libel?

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Lets ask Larry Flynt...
[info]achasonc
2008-09-27 07:00 pm UTC (link)
are the campaigns trying to inflict emotional distress or just trying to be funny?
Either way, thanks Ryan for keeping us updated. I love these little gems that the national media try to avoid.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Lets ask Larry Flynt...
[info]the_siobhan
2008-09-27 07:17 pm UTC (link)
I have no idea. I haven't seen them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Lets ask Larry Flynt...
[info]arianadii
2008-09-27 07:58 pm UTC (link)
The intention is clear in the case of the NRA ads. If the issue actually was slander and libel, they would go after the ads and not the advertising outlets. They can't do that though because the ads are factual.

Besides, he is a public figure running for the highest office in the land. His positions should be openly examined and criticized. Slander and libel should not apply. The public has a right to examine and dissect his views and policies.






(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Lets ask Larry Flynt...
[info]the_siobhan
2008-09-27 08:20 pm UTC (link)
I agree that the policies of politicians should be examined.

I was asking specifically about slander and libel because the news article Ryan linked to specifically said "lies" and mentioned the frequent claim that he's not a Christian.

(Not that claiming somebody isn't a Christian is slander, but you get my point.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Lets ask Larry Flynt...
[info]arianadii
2008-09-27 08:27 pm UTC (link)
Yes. I understand. The problem here is using elected officials and law enforcement to intimidate journalists who they arbitrarily decide are "lying" or not telling the truth as they see it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Lets ask Larry Flynt...
[info]dekarch
2008-09-28 01:09 am UTC (link)
Can someone point me to an actual campaign ad that claims he's not a Christian?

Seriously?

Most of the Republicans I know, when they want to call into question Obama's religious views, play clips of his pastor of 20 years screaming "GOD DAMN AMERICA!"

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Lets ask Larry Flynt...
[info]the_siobhan
2008-09-28 03:56 am UTC (link)
I take it you don't know the answer either.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Lets ask Larry Flynt...
[info]dekarch
2008-09-28 02:13 pm UTC (link)
The first amendment doesn't cover slander and libel. But proving slander or libel is a bit difficult--especially when you're talking about campaign ads. And it's a civil issue, not a criminal one. If someone slanders you, the DA doesn't bring a criminal case, you hire a lawyer and sue them in civil court.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Lets ask Larry Flynt...
[info]the_siobhan
2008-09-28 06:22 pm UTC (link)
Thank you for the serious answer. That makes things a little more clear.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]montieth
2008-09-27 07:59 pm UTC (link)
Slander and liable are Civil matters, NOT criminal matters. If the Obama Campaign feels he's been slandered, they're welcome to file suit in civil court.

Election campaigns have NO business enlisting the aid of police and prosecutors correcting people they feel are saying the wrong message in the media. I would expect you to understand the implications of this Siobhan.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]the_siobhan
2008-09-27 08:25 pm UTC (link)
I wasn't asking about "the wrong message" I specifically asked about slander and libel.

If I owned a US newspaper and printed a political ad that says, "Obama is a Moslem terrorist" is that covered by your first amendment?

If I owned a US new station and I broadcasted a political ad that said, "McCain is suffering from Alzheimers and Palin has made it illegal in Alaska to be non-Christian" is that protected by your first amendment?

A simple yes or no should give me the information I'm requesting.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]adrian76
2008-09-27 08:26 pm UTC (link)
You can say whatever you want, you just have to be prepared to face the consequences.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jordan179
2008-09-28 05:56 pm UTC (link)
You can say whatever you want, you just have to be prepared to face the consequences.

According to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, these "consequences" cannot lawfully include legal ones, save under certain limited circumstances.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]montieth
2008-09-28 07:15 am UTC (link)
If I owned a US newspaper and printed a political ad that says, "Obama is a Moslem terrorist" is that covered by your first amendment?

Have you looked at some of the stuff that's being published by the New York Times, the supposed 'paper of record' for the US?

We don't have kangaroo courts here in the US like you do in Canada so perhaps you're just not up on good old fashioned English Common Law Tort princoples. In the case of Libel or Slander, the individual feels aggrieved by another party is the plaintiff, not the state. It is entirely up to the offended party to prove, in court, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the the slander or libel is false. If they cannot do that then they must pay for their own court costs. One must also prove that the defamation caused damages of some sort (loss of reputation).

The people who walk around with "Bush is a nazi" or "Bush is a terrorist" can do so. That is in fact a form of slander, proving damages would be difficult too, so it's not worthwhile to go after them for such. Richard Jewel who was accused of planting the Bomb in Centennial Park at the '96 Olympics in Atlanta sued news outlets and publishers for the slander/libel against him and succeeded in a number of cases.

A simple yes or no should give me the information I'm requesting.

It is not a simple question. Yes or no is NOT the answer.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]the_siobhan
2008-09-28 01:50 pm UTC (link)
You know what? I give up.

I ask you a question and it becomes yet another excuse to insult me and my country. You don't know the answer? Great. The answer is complicated? Great, educate me, I'm interested. But I'm tired of you using every possible excuse to take random pot-shots at my citizenship. I mean, kangaroo courts? Where the fuck did that come from?

It's not funny any more.

See you 'round, Ryan.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jordan179
2008-09-28 06:01 pm UTC (link)
I ask you a question and it becomes yet another excuse to insult me and my country. You don't know the answer? Great. The answer is complicated? Great, educate me, I'm interested. But I'm tired of you using every possible excuse to take random pot-shots at my citizenship. I mean, kangaroo courts? Where the fuck did that come from?

It is well-known, thanks to their foolishness in prosecuting Steyn, that the Canada Human Rights Commission is essentially a "kangaroo court," and an instrument of illiberal censorship. If you don't want Canada to be laughed at for having the HRC, abolish it, and regain your status as a country with freedom of speech.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]montieth
2008-09-28 06:52 pm UTC (link)
You don't know the answer? Great. The answer is complicated? Great, educate me,

I did so above. Where I stated"Slander and liable are Civil matters, NOT criminal matters. If the Obama Campaign feels he's been slandered, they're welcome to file suit in civil court." [info]sappersgt Stated essentially the same thing. It's english common law. Look it up.

But instead you kept asking the same questions ignoring the sophistication of the issue and the fact that [info]arianadii stated that the Obama Campaign is going after the NRA for their ads where they expose Sen Obama's VERY authoritarian stance on private firearm ownership.

After your repeated above statements I can only conclude that you think that the various Canadian 'Human Rights' Commissions are in fact the right way to do things when people are offended by other parties. And honestly, the number of times I seem to recall you making pretty bald faced insults southwards, then well, you need to be able to take some serious snark directed northwards.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]the_siobhan
2008-09-28 08:02 pm UTC (link)
I did so above. Where I stated"Slander and liable are Civil matters, NOT criminal matters. If the Obama Campaign feels he's been slandered, they're welcome to file suit in civil court."

You may think you answered the question, but since I know very little about how your constitution works and what it covers, you didn't. At least not to my understanding. [info]sappersgt's response was a lot more clear.

But instead you kept asking the same questions ignoring the sophistication of the issue and the fact that [info]arianadii stated that the Obama Campaign is going after the NRA for their ads where they expose Sen Obama's VERY authoritarian stance on private firearm ownership.

I'm not ignoring the NRA ads, I haven't seen them. I have no opinion on any ads for either candidate. Surprisingly enough they don't bother to broadcast them here. And I didn't think it had anything to do with my question anyway.

After your repeated above statements I can only conclude that you think that the various Canadian 'Human Rights' Commissions are in fact the right way to do things when people are offended by other parties. And honestly, the number of times I seem to recall you making pretty bald faced insults southwards, then well, you need to be able to take some serious snark directed northwards.

Feel free to point out any place where I have expressed any opinion either for or against the recent actions of the Human Rights Commission. Seriously. Because I'm pretty sure I haven't made any. I especially haven't made any here because it has fuck all to do with the topic you posted about or the question I was asking.

I have a lot of critical things to say about your country and your government. I also have a lot of critical things to say about my country and my government. On any given day if you bring up a random country I will either say, "I don't know anything about them" or guess what, I will have something critical to say about them. (Something good too, probably.)

What I do not do is;
1. Make shit up and
2. Interject shit into conversations that have nothing whatsoever to do with said criticism. I mean you managed to insert a snark about Canadian health care in a post I made about shopping, for fuck's sake. (Along with some really offensive suggestion that I have breast-reduction surgery, now that I think about it. I mean who the fuck does that?)

I used to think you were trying to be funny. Now I think you're just trying to needle me. And I really don't need that.

Make whatever response you like. This is my last word on the subject regardless.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jordan179
2008-09-28 05:58 pm UTC (link)
If I owned a US newspaper and printed a political ad that says, "Obama is a Moslem terrorist" is that covered by your first amendment?

If I owned a US new station and I broadcasted a political ad that said, "McCain is suffering from Alzheimers and Palin has made it illegal in Alaska to be non-Christian" is that protected by your first amendment?

In terms of criminal consequences, yes.

In either case, the parties referred to might have a good civil case. Or not, given that they are celebrities who have chosen to make their lives the matter of public debate.

Do you know the difference between a "crime" and a "tort?"

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]the_siobhan
2008-09-28 06:23 pm UTC (link)
Thank you for the serious answer.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]adrian76
2008-09-27 08:25 pm UTC (link)
Since I think he's gonna win...this is going to make the next four years rather interesting dontcha think? I mean if this is just a peek into what is going on in that head of his...hm...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jordan179
2008-09-28 03:50 pm UTC (link)
Does the first ammendment protect slander and libel?

No, but we obviously aren't talking about slander and libel here, because those are torts, and prosecutors deal with crimes.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]xthlcm
2008-09-27 10:34 pm UTC (link)
What I'm curious about is whether they are planning to act in their official capacity as prosecutors, or whether they're simply planning to use their stature as law enforcement authorities to speak publicly against false campaigning.

Even if it's the latter, I don't think this kind of posture is appropriate, similar to how it's inappropriate for current or prior military personnel to canvass or appear at political rallies in uniform.

The news story mentioned "Missouri ethics laws" and the spin of the reporting seemed to imply that there would be some sort of official pursuit of advertising that they considered false. But I'm somewhat dubious -- the actual quotes they had made it seem more like a "Law Enforcement for Obama" group (parse the verbage there). That plus a lack of any official release from the Obama campaign or other source about the "Truth Squad" makes this seem more like either a local news exaggeration or two particularly overzealous DAs for Obama.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]theevilchemist
2008-09-28 12:20 am UTC (link)
"What I'm curious about is whether they are planning to act in their official capacity as prosecutors, or whether they're simply planning to use their stature as law enforcement authorities to speak publicly against false campaigning."

No where in that segment did they say they were acting in an official capacity. It's unremarkable to recruit figures in respected positions or position of credibility to speak on the behalf of the candidate. McCain used one last night when he was talking about the woman who asked that we win this war so her son didn't die in vain. When candidates are seeking endorsements, they highlight ones that they believe will add validity to their campaign. You don't see me on tv, b/c I really wouldn't have much of an impact on the audience.
Since law enforcement officials and DA's are supposedly "good guys" pairing them with the "truth squad" adds validity to the message. Putting Rev. Wright on there, proabably wouldn't.

jv




(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]notgruntled
2008-09-28 12:12 am UTC (link)
If the sheriff sent an officer, than would be an official act and an abuse of his office. If he used his stature as an elected official to support a fellow Democrat in an election campaign, I wouldn't bat an eye.

This is a nothing-burger of a controversy. Or are you similarly worried that McCain's "truth squad" includes the attorney general of South Carolina?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]montieth
2008-09-28 07:19 am UTC (link)
If they show up and identify themselves as an officer of the court or as an officer of the law, then, yeah, I'm going to say violation of 1st amendment principles.

Would you get a bit nervous if a police officer showed up at your door to inquire if you had written an article about Gov Purdue that was not so favorable?

The modern day Comte Antoine de Guiche should not be able to send out goons to show displeasure.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]notgruntled
2008-09-28 11:05 pm UTC (link)
I agree that an officer questioning/harassing folks would be an abuse of office. But there is no indication that has happened here.

Both candidates are supported by elected officials of their party, and both have some of those officials volunteering to combat rumors from the blogosphere. What happened in this case is that some of Obama's Missouri supporters are sheriffs and DAs, a fact Drudge ran with and Gov. Blount used his office to decry. There have been no reported threats, and not even the Republicans are claiming that any of those officials have acted inappropriately under color of office, unless I've missed something.

I'm a near-absolutist on the First Amendment, but I'm not going to get all het up over an abuse that Matt Drudge and Roy Blount claim might happen.


(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jordan179
2008-09-28 01:04 am UTC (link)
What effect would you expect if a sheriffs officer came by and had words with your company on the content of your news story or advertisement?

Depending on the degree of support for the position by the owners, and the credibility of the threat, either extreme submission or extreme outrage. Obama is clearly hoping for the first, but he may well get the second. I hope for the sake of democracy in America that this tactic pushes moderates into the McCain camp.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…