OLYMPIA — A sharply divided state Supreme Court has ruled that a law that bars political candidates from deliberately making false statements about their opponents violates the First Amendment right of free speech.

In a 5-4 ruling, the high court affirmed a state Court of Appeals ruling that overturned the law. The measure was enacted by the Legislature in 1999, a year after a similar ban on false statements involving initiatives and other ballot measures was thrown out by the state Supreme Court.

I sent a link to this article to my partner yesterday, which led to quite a discussion (albeit mostly on his part). I'm lucky to have such a smart partner because it's easy to get angry about an issue like this without fully thinking it through. What follows is the gist of the conversation.

While on the face of it may seem as though the Supreme Court has indeed given politicians free reign to lie, to say so would be a gross oversimplification of the issues at hand. In fact it just might be an example of where the constitution doesn't always agree, in letter of law, with what we think is a decent and upstanding position.

Do we really want to put the government in the position of verifying everything candidates say? They already can't properly administer health care or social security. And if a candidate, once elected, is found to have made a concrete, verifiably false statement about his/her opponent, do we strip them of their office? If so, do we put the opponent in his/her place? How egregious of a lie would it have to be to go to that trouble? Any lie at all? A big lie? A small lie? A tiny white lie? Do we have to show that the lie was made knowingly? If so how?

It makes me sick to my stomach that any individual should take advantage of the legal system to absolve themselves of mud-slinging, filthy tactics, or any other manner of what I, and what I consider decent people would consider to be, underhanded tactics. And yes, if that is what we truly desired, we could probably (if enough citizens would get off their asses), make it the government's job to verify everything that everyone ever says, or even just our candidates.

In my heart of hearts, I might even believe that that would be a worthy goal. But how would we implement it? I'm not defending the tenants of the law or the implementation of it as listed in the article by any means. I just think that regardless of what the best and most earnest ideals for a government of the people might be, they can only really do so much. There is much incumbent upon every citizen to seek out truth - to evaluate historical perspectives and speeches by candidates. To seek out information about voting records. To do more than watch commercials. To, by their participation and voting, and god forbid initiatives, ensure a legal system by which such information is readily available to use to make such decisions. And then, for good or ill, for each to decide for him/herself.

Do most people, including me, do this? Ever? Probably not.

Read more...