A state law prohibiting malicious lies in political ads was thrown out by the State Supreme court yesterday on the grounds it chills the free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.
In an opinion that bitterly disagreed with the 5-4 decision that the law is unconstitutional, Justice Phil Talmadge chastised the court.
"Today, the Washington State Supreme Court becomes the first court in the history of the Republic to declare First Amendment protection for calculated lies," he wrote.
The state is considering appealing the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
But political observers said yesterday they didn't expect the ruling to unleash a torrent of campaign ads filled with blatant untruths and prevarications.
"No one has phoned me and said, 'Now I'm free to lie about my opponent,'" said veteran political consultant Brett Bader. "Lying typically backfires as a tactic. Voters catch on when someone is playing fast and loose with the truth."
Jim Kneeland, a Seattle public affairs consultant, agreed. "I don't think it will change the way political campaigns are run at all," he said. "Ads are still going to be submitted to the straight-face test, and the more outrageous the claims get, the more people aren't going to buy them."
Senior Assistant Attorney General Thomas Holcomb said yesterday the public can continue to rely on the press and the candidates, themselves, to keep political campaigns honest.
But he said that particularly in ballot initiatives, which lack individual candidates personally motivated to defend their honor, the law is critical in protecting voters from deliberate untruths.
Washington has been one of a handful of states in the nation to specifically ban false political ads. The state's 1988 law prohibits anyone from "sponsoring with actual political malice, political advertising that contains a false statement of material fact."
The case stemmed from state allegations that foes of a failed
1991 "death with dignity" ballot initiative.
that would have authorized physician-assisted suicide knowingly published false ads.
A Thurston County judge ruled there was no violation. But the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington used the case as an opportunity to challenge the law's constitutionality.
With the majority of the high court ruling that the state law was unconstitutional, the question of whether initiative's foes didn't violate the law fell moot.
Since it was passed, the law has allowed the state Public Disclosure Commission to fine offenders $10,000 per violation, and for prosecutors to pursue the case in the courts. Since 1990, the commission has found violations of the law 13 times and has referred three cases for court action.
After the ruling yesterday, the state Public Disclosure Commission decided to drop 10 cases involving investigations of false political advertising, according to Melissa Warheit, its executive director.
The question of whether the state had been overstepping the bounds of the First Amendment in enforcing the law touched off a firestorm of debate among the nine justices, who distributed their varying views in four separate opinions yesterday.
Justice Richard Sanders, a member of the majority, wrote that the law assumes the state has "an independent right to determine truth and falsity in political debate," and that voters are "too ignorant or disinterested" to figure out the truth for themselves.
Sanders said that falsehoods told in political campaigns can, in fact, clarify issues for voters--resulting, as was noted in a 1947 U.S. Supreme Court case, "in the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by the collision with error."
Left to their own devices, Sanders said political campaigns tend to root out lies quite effectively. "A campaign's factual blunder is most likely noisy and corrected by the campaign's political opponent rather than the state," he wrote.
Sanders' interpretation of the broad reach of the First Amendment infuriated Talmadge, who dismissed the opinion as "a collage of quotes extolling the virtues of free speech."
According to Talmadge, the majority overlooked a fundamental point the U.S. Supreme Court has made in several landmark cases.
"There is no constitutional value in false statements of fact," he said.
"Neither the intentional lie, nor careless errors material advances society's interest in uninhibited, robust, wide-open debate on public issues."
Furthermore, he said the majority seemed to to(sic) be "shockingly oblivious to the increasing nastiness of modern American political campaigns."
He said the state law serves voters by narrowly taking aim at "the calculating liar, who with clear mind and steadfast deliberate purpose, coldly composes and diligently distributes knowing lies to effect a desired political result."
P-I reporter
Heath Foster
can be reached at 360-943-3990
or heathfoster@seattle-pi.com
(text of June 12, 1998 Seattle
Post-Intelligencer front-page article)
-AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO WONDERS, IF THIS DECISION ISN'T APPEALED AND OVERTURNED, WHEN THE POLITICAL PARTIES ARE GOING TO START GETTING THEIR CANDIDATES DIRECTLY FROM PENITENTIARIES?
WHY RECRUIT AMATEURS WITHOUT EXPERIENCE AND SKILLS AT THE PRESENT AND PREVAILING "SOCIETY'S ATTITUDES" WHEN YOU CAN TURN TO THOSE MOST CAPABLE--THE BEST AT THEIR CRAFT AND MOST APPROPRIATE TO THE NEEDS OF SUCH JOB REQUIREMENTS?
I MEAN, 25 YEARS AND MORE AGO I INHALED WHEN I "EXPERIMENTED" WITH THAT WEED, HAD SOME TROUBLE WITH THE CANADIAN LEGAL SYSTEM ABOUT IT, PAID THE RENDERED PENALTIES FOR MY CRIMES, AND HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING OF THE SORT SINCE.
AND I HAVE NO RECORD OF CRIMES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST PEOPLE, THEFT, OR DISHONESTY.VISITORS WHO HAVE TAKEN A CONTINUING INTEREST IN THIS AWARD-WINNING WEBSITE (A FRIEND OF MINE DREW MY ATTENTION TO A REFERENCE TO IT IN A CHATROOM) SHOULD PUT A BOOKMARK HERE.
WHEN THE PROVERBIAL...YOU SEE?
IF IT'S OKAY TO LIE, WHAT ISN'T THAT SUBSTANCE THAT HITS THE FAN?...
WHEN THE PROVERBIAL SHIT HITS THE FAN DOWN WASHINGTON, D.C. WAY (AS WELL AS WASHINGTON STATE) AFTER I CHECK FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD WITH THE SITTING U.S. PRESIDENT HOW THIS ISSUE OF MY "INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC WORK...ON A DIRECT BASIS" FOR THE WORLD'S CHILDREN WAS SETTLED AFTER THE 1977-78 STAGES OF IT, WON'T "ALL OF US" WANT TO KNOW WHY IT WASN'T FOLLOWED UP AS THE 1978 DOCUMENTATION PROMISED EXCEPT BY THE AUTHOR OF THIS AWARD-WINNING WEBSITE...WITH HIS RECORD AS ONE WHO INHALED THAT WEED 25 YEARS AND MORE AGO?
AND FOR THIS "PUBLIC RECORD," I AM GOING TO SEND THAT LAST REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION VIA SOMEONE WHO WOULD BE LESS OF AN INSTIGATION TO RETALIATION ON THE BASIS OF WHAT YOU FIND ON THE OTHER END OF ANY OF THE LINKS HERE FROM THE WORDS "TRUTH," "HONEST," OR "FACT."
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE AMERICAN SENATE LET 'HIM' GET AWAY WITH, 'HE' HAS NO CREDIBILITY WITH ME...NOT LEAST OF ALL BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU FIND IF YOU TAKE A BRIEF SIDESTEP HERE.
INCIDENTALLY, VISITORS TO THIS AWARD-WINNING WEBSITE WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOTE THAT I USED HERE ONE OF THE SEVEN WORDS AMERICA'S GREAT COMEDIAN GEORGE CARLIN NOTED HAS BEEN TRADITIONALLY NOT PERMISSABLE ON U.S. NETWORK TELEVISION.
I ANTICIPATE THERE MAY IMMINENTLY BE TELEVISION NEWS INTEREST IN THIS AWARD-WINNING WEBSITE.
IT IS USED AT A NUMBER OF OTHER PLACES IN THE CONTENTS OF THE WEBSITE.
I FEEL OBLIGED TO EXPLAIN HERE BRIEFLY THAT THE RECENT USE OF THE WORD BY ACTOR MARK HARMON ON THE PROGRAM, 'CHICAGO HOPE', WAS NOT ITS FIRST PERMITTED USE ON AMERICAN NETWORK TELEVISION.
TO BE REMINDED WHEN IT WAS PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED, TAKE A BRIEF SIDESTEP HERE, AND THEN COME BACK TO THIS PAGE.
...VISITORS TO THIS AWARD-WINNING WEBSITE MAY FIND THAT USE OR THE ONE HERE OBJECTIONABLE OR CONTRARY TO THE "JOB REQUIREMENTS" OF FULFILLING THE MANDATE OF EITHER THE SPECIAL DIPLOMATIC ADVISER TO THE U.S. PRESIDENT OR SENIOR ADVISER TO THE YEAR OF THE CHILD AUTHORITY (AS ARE DEFINED BY WHAT YOU FIND IF YOU TAKE A BRIEF SIDESTEP HERE).
OR THEY MAY FIND THE USES INAPPROPRIATE TO THE TARGET AUDIENCE AS IS EXPLAINED BY WHAT YOU FIND IF YOU TAKE A BRIEF SIDESTEP HERE...
WELL, THERE IS WHAT YOU SEE BELOW HERE...
DON'T THINK THE WISDOM OF THOMAS JEFFERSON IS PASSÉ YET IN WHAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO FROM YOUR GOVERNMENT? LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD: TAKE A BRIEF SIDESTEP HERE TO SIGN MY GUESTBOOK.
JUST A FINAL NOTE ABOUT USING THAT WORD NOT OFTEN PERMITTED ON AMERICAN NETWORK TELEVISION.
I HAD, AS AN "ALTERNATIVE" TO THE WORD USED TO DESCRIBE THOSE THINGS MENTIONED IN THE LINK TO THE LIST OF CONTENTS FOR ONE OF MY SUBMISSION'S TO WASHINGTON, D.C.'S "CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION" (IF NECESSARY, AGAIN--TAKE A BRIEF SIDESTEP HERE), WHAT YOU WOULD FIND IF YOU TAKE YOUR NEXT FOOTSTEP HERE.
TAKE YOUR PICK OR CHOOSE YOUR OWN.