Should politicians be legally liable for their words?

[BobG]

Have you all seen this commercial:

http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2006/10/22/2436883.html

It appears it has backfired, and it could be libelous.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003286540

I guess we'll see if the ad backfires.

If it was an 800 number he called, then obviously the charge was by the hotel, not the phone sex line. They must charge for all out-going calls and the call was included with all the rest.

The problem is that most voters only see the commercial and never read or hear the details behind the ad. Even if there's an article in the newspapers, it's usually buried pretty far back.

If the ad does become a big issue in the news, it certainly could backfire, especially if records back up that the charge was as ludicrous as it sounds, but that just doesn't happen very often.

 

[edward]

A recent study shows that negative attack ads do work. The effects even show up in brain scans. Shades of Orwell, we are being politically brainwashed.

Fair elections committees are going to have to insure that each side will be required to show the exact same number of negative ads.
Then they can give an award to the person producing the most damning piece of trash. This has to stop.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1501AP_Political_Ads_Science.html

 

[loseyourname]

You know, I haven't been seeing any gallingly negative ads here. The worst just highlight the way a certain candidate voted with the implication being we (the people of the northern Bay Area) don't want someone in office that makes those kinds of votes. I haven't noticed any that attack a person's character or try to associate a candidate with evil or vice. The most noticeable thing was a contest being advertised in the local school newspaper in which students are invited to submit "flunk Arnold" ads. It bothered me to see something like that, but it still seems a heck of a lot tamer than what's going on elsewhere in the country, given what is being posted here.

 

[Skyhunter]

You know, I haven't been seeing any gallingly negative ads here. The worst just highlight the way a certain candidate voted with the implication being we (the people of the northern Bay Area) don't want someone in office that makes those kinds of votes. I haven't noticed any that attack a person's character or try to associate a candidate with evil or vice. The most noticeable thing was a contest being advertised in the local school newspaper in which students are invited to submit "flunk Arnold" ads. It bothered me to see something like that, but it still seems a heck of a lot tamer than what's going on elsewhere in the country, given what is being posted here.

California has prop 89 (publicly financed elections) on the ballot. If it passes I will be interested in seeing the results next cycle.

I don't watch TV, so the only negative ads I have seen are from youtube.

 

[loseyourname]

California has prop 89 (publicly financed elections) on the ballot. If it passes I will be interested in seeing the results next cycle.

I don't watch TV, so the only negative ads I have seen are from youtube.

I have to admit I haven't paid terrible attention to the ballot propositions. Is Prop 89 a clean money bill like Arizona passed, whereby any politician can opt in, but does not have to, or would this require the public financing of all campaigns?

I only watch sports for the most part, so I'm pretty much seeing beer and auto insurance commercials. I have noticed a few ads here and there, though. They seem surreal to me when they come on. The whole idea of selling a politician like a product, paralleling Dodge commercials that make it seem like you're a little girl for driving another type of truck, is so patently absurd when you step back from it to really think about what is being done. How on Earth did almost everything in our culture become some twisted hybrid between a horse race and a marketing campaign? Has the selection of leaders always occurred either like this or through military conquest? There has to be a better way.

 

[Skyhunter]

I have to admit I haven't paid terrible attention to the ballot propositions. Is Prop 89 a clean money bill like Arizona passed, whereby any politician can opt in, but does not have to, or would this require the public financing of all campaigns?

It is modeled on the Arizona law. I did not read the text of the bill. I am supporting it because it sould open the door to more candidates, which I think might be healthy for politics.

 

[edward]

I have seen several attack ads based on fear of terrorists. The one below is a good example. They attack the Democratic party in general. I saw the most offensive one on FOX news this morning, but I can't seem to locate it on the net.

 

[Gokul43201]

I have seen several attack ads based on fear of terrorists. The one below is a good example. They attack the Democratic party in general. I saw the most offensive one on FOX news this morning, but I can't seem to locate it on the net.

That's just funny!

"Do we really want to see this again?"

In my recollection, the "political party with radical anti-war leaders" didn't control the Senate, the House, or the Executive, when "this" happened the first time!

 

[edward]

This one is even more ridiculous, the voice in the ad even plugs a company. I would tend to think that it is a joke.

 

[phoenixy]

Last minute political/illegal shenanigan

http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/06/2011251

 

[Skyhunter]

Did you see this one?

Olbermann responds here.