Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Should politicians be legally liable for their words?

  1. Oct 27, 2006 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    With all of the mud slinging in politics around election time, one begins to wonders where the line is drawn between attack ads, and defamation of character. Perhaps part of the problem with the system is that there is no personal responsiblity for all of this nonsense. I'm starting to think that losing or winning an election does not forgive all sins. Many of these attack ads would certainly result in a law suit in most any other context.

    Did the "bunny" in the Tennessee [Corker] attack ad really meet Ford at a party? She sure looked like an actress to me.

    Of course, this actually applies to many people within the political process, not just the candidates.

    Edit: I just saw that she really did meet Ford at the Playboy party. :rolleyes: Still, I think that and many commercials go way too far.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 28, 2006 #2
    The playboy Super Bowl party was held in Florida after the 2005 game. There were over 3000 celebrity guests.
     
  4. Oct 28, 2006 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If someone ran a deceptive commercial like that about me, I would sue. How can one possibly argue that this is not defamation of character; esp since it applies to an election?
     
  5. Oct 28, 2006 #4

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Such adds and TV programming in general are some reasons I don't watch TV. :rolleyes:

    Certainly, a person can sue for libel or slander.

    Some commercials though simply take excerpts out of context, which falls in a grey area.
     
  6. Oct 29, 2006 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It would be a hornet's nest to filter legitimate campaign rhetoric from libel, but in a way I see this in the same way as the violence in sports issue. If a guy on the street walks up and punches someone in the face, he will likely get arrested. If this happens in a hockey game, he goes to the penalty box or gets thrown out of the game. I think he should be arrested like anyone else. In the same way, some or much or what I see in the political attack ads is more like a punch in the face than a high-sticking offense.

    The important thing here is that attack ads clearly can change the results of an election. If elections are won by lies and not by the honest position of the candidates on important issues, then democracy is an illusion.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2006
  7. Oct 29, 2006 #6

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ivan, if I walked up to my friend and punched him in the face, odds are I won't get arrested.

    Context is key.... in a hockey game, you willingly place yourself in an environment where punches are possible and accepted. Likewise, if you place yourself in the position of a public figure (that would be someone who's known by the public, not a government official), you place yourself open to the acknowledged possibility of distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies.

    It should be pointed out that a punch in the face can be less penalized than a high sticking offense (depending on context, of course)
     
  8. Oct 29, 2006 #7

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I worry about this conclusion. I certainly do not expect it, but maybe many people do. Does this mean we should expect politicians to solicit campaign donations and then be influenced by the money? If that is the case, then, as Ivan mentioned, democracy is an illusion. I think we (as a society) should expect better than, I think we should be better than, and I think we ought to demand better than that.
     
  9. Oct 29, 2006 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    An interesting bit of California history that applies.

    http://www.ou.edu/special/albertctr/archives/exhibit/hgdbio.htm
     
  10. Oct 30, 2006 #9

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    we can't afford to.
     
  11. Oct 30, 2006 #10

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Just because it's possible doesn't mean you should accept it as the norm.

    You can still vote the candidate out of office. If you're having trouble because both sides simply resort to name calling and mud slinging, then keep voting the incumbent out. Eventually someone will get smart, campaign clean, and get re-elected. Of course, if people keep voting for candidates based on party, rather than on the candidate, we'll never get this.

    If you want to demand better, then don't vote for that side. It's really simple, if you're willing to just stand up for what you believe is right
     
  12. Oct 30, 2006 #11

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Who should be legally liable? With the PACs and 527s, it isn't actually the candidate making the false charges, even if they reap the benefits or, occasionally, the backlash from the ads.

    In fact, some of these groups feed on the party they're most closely associated with more than they do the opposing party. The 'Republican' Club for Growth is one example: Club for Growth. More important than having a Republican win, they're concerned about having the 'right type' of Republican run in the first place.

    Nationwide for 2006, they've spent $1.7 million attacking Republican candidates in the primaries, less than $0.2 million attacking Democrats in the general elections, and about $0.7 million actually supporting a Republican candidate. (With stats like that, Dems have to like Club for Growth more than Republicans do).

    In our Congressional district, they spent $86,000 attacking the two leading Republican candidates in the primary and $21,000 supporting their favorite Republican candidate. They haven't attacked the Democratic candidate at all (negative backlash against attack ads by a conservative Christian group during the primaries are the main reason credited for making the general election competitive in the first place - it suddenly doesn't seem like the best time to start slinging mud).
     
  13. Oct 30, 2006 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Whoever made the false claims. Ultimately someone had to write the check.
     
  14. Oct 30, 2006 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't see any evidence for this. The problem is that many people are never the wiser. Many people believe what they hear on the Rush Limbaugh show.
     
  15. Oct 30, 2006 #14

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6085922.stm

    We paid for it, but we're not responsible for what's in it...
     
  16. Oct 30, 2006 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So the answer is that the Republican National Committee is responsible. If they had the authority to pull it, clearly the responsibility is theirs.

    Beyond that, someone was in charge who was responsible for the decision to fund the commercial. At the least, that person should be named in a suit.
     
  17. Oct 30, 2006 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    At first. Corker allegedly asked the Rep. Nat Committee to pull the commercial. They responded by saying something like they didn't have the authority. Then Ford pointed out how unfortunate it is that Corker is such a puppet that can't even run his own campaign. Shortly thereafter, the ad was pulled.

    Conversely, I thought it was way out of line to come out and call Foley a child molester based on a few reports of innappropriate emails, so the Dems are just as bad at times.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2006
  18. Oct 30, 2006 #17
    The Dems aren't as bad yet. They are still behind the on the sleaze curve, but they are working on it.
     
  19. Oct 31, 2006 #18
    Worse yet, many believe what they hear coming from Michael Moore.

    edited: Ok, maybe it's not worse but it's certainly just as bad.
     
  20. Oct 31, 2006 #19

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Why can't politicians simply say, "I disagree with opponent on such-and-such issue, and this is my view/alternative idea . . . .".

    If negative campaigning (all about emotion) is so successful, what does that say about the process, and the electorate?

    There are serious issues such as security and the long term economic picture (i.e. the government has more obligations than it has funds, trade deficit is huge and likely to continue, federal government is still running huge deficits, . . .), which must be addressed, and ultimately taxes must be increased, or the government must simply cut the budget in half - which will mean, little or no SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and dramatic reductions in defense, education, . . . . Alternatively, the US government can sell all assets of the US to those who have money.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2006
  21. Oct 31, 2006 #20
    democracy (at least our brand) IS an illusion.

    It is, in my opinion, an illusion to think that just be going to vote you are going to affect change.

    The system itself, as a whole, is broken. Even if you did manage to vote in one candidate who was TRULY dedicated to his or her values, this person would have to contend with the machinery of our political juggernaut.

    I say the system is broken because both parties resort to name calling and mud slinging as well as manipulation of political issues when it suits their needs.

    Case in point, in 04 the hubub was over gay marriage. Consequently, this was the big issue for the Republicans and lead to victories in many states as well as in the highest office of the land. Come 2006, we hear absolutely nothing about this issue - the politicians just pander to whatever is popular at the time. Another point, John Kerry, for all his tough talk on Iraq in the begining, did a 180 for the 2004 election - because it was popular to be against the war at the time (well, it still is).
    Or how about another case... the insecurity of our border. We've got GW signing into law a bill to build a 700 mile fence along our border. Did he do this in 2001 when it might have made a difference? No, of course not... it wasn't popular at the time.
    [ I don't support a fence on the border. I do, however, support a 25 year prison sentence and $1 million fine for employing illegal immigrants. ]

    I won't bother to drum up examples of mud slinging, as we've all seen them from both sides of the aisle.

    Clearly the time for change is at hand. There are multiple parties out there, at least one of them is likely to be a better match for your ideals than the Dems/Republicans. Problem is, these candidates stand zero chance of winning as they get zero air time and zero coverage. The system is not going to allow change from within... change must come from the outside.

    By continuing to vote for the two party system you are only showing your support for the status quo. If you truly believe in the ideals of one party or the other, fine - vote away. However if you are disatisfied.. don't go to the polls thinking your vote is going to bring about change because you will be sorely disappointed.



    As for the original question, it depends. If what the ads say is true (even if it may be out of context or distorted) then you have no room to complain. By taking part in our political process, you know the risks involved - character assassination is a well known tactic. Of course, if the opposing side just makes things up, then clearly this is libelous.

    A politician who complains about being slammed in an ad is like a burglar who complains because he breaks into a house and gets mauled by the family dog.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Should politicians be legally liable for their words?
  1. Lying politicians (Replies: 112)

  2. Outsider politicians (Replies: 0)

Loading...