Constitutionality of Ohio law governing political falsehoods.

[Supposn]

Constitutionality of Ohio law governing political falsehoods.

 

This year the U.S. Supreme Court will soon publish their decision regarding an Ohio law that criminalize the inducement of false political statements to be published.

[i have not yet obtained a copy of the statutes and am assuming that’s the gist of the Ohio law being challenged].

Plaintiffs argue that the Ohio law is contrary to the U.S. constitution's first amendment; (i.e. freedom of speech amendment). I agree with the preponderance of opinions; the Ohio law will be found unconstitutional. I would regret any government being the ultimate identifiers of what is a criminally published falsehoods and criminalizing political falsehoods would create rather than reduce the mischief due to such falsehoods.

 

Would it be unconstitutional for Ohio law to enable citizen’s right to sue individuals or organizations for deliberately or recklessly contributing or enabling or causing the publication of a falsehood that likely would or did materially affect a political election held within Ohio?

 

Such suits would be civil rather than criminal matters. The plaintiffs’ legal basis would be as voters in Ohio that are or could be directly or indirectly affected by the elections in question.

 

Couldn’t Ohio law be drafted that could recognize such false hoods that may or have materially may have caused public officials’ retaining or obtaining their offices?

 

As consequences of public officials' admissions of such a false hoods, or if within a court in Ohio they were found personally liable due to such falsehoods, Ohio law could recognize those falsehoods as grounds for the office holders to be impeached from their offices.

 

Vulnerability to impeachment does not necessarily mandate that the appropriate governing body must impeach the office holder. The ability or right to impeach does not absolutely mandate that the governing body must impeach.

But there are usually political consequences for obviously grievous failure of a government body to ignore public awareness of any lack of diligence on behalf of the state or the state’s voters.

 

On the other hand I would hope that Ohio and the great preponderance of our other states have stringent requirements to be met in order to remove elected and appointed officials from their offices; impeachments should not be taken lightly.

 

Ohio laws would have no jurisdiction upon elected or appointed federal officials but Ohio civil laws would have jurisdiction over candidates participating in elections conducted within Ohio.

 

Ohio cannot determine the rules governing the U.S. Congress; each congressional chamber makes their own rules and the U.S. Congress makes or modifies federal laws. U.S. Congress could use Ohio laws as a model for federal laws.

 

Respectfully, Supposn

[DeNova]

Define 'false hoods' Opinions are subjective, anyone can error in interpreting the facts since the truth may be the fact represented may not be true.

[bludog]

The proposed laws sounds like and attempt at political censorship to me. Political falsehoods can be any opinions or factual claims made by the opposition, which are pronounced to be untrue by those with the power; And then punished under the proposed law.

 

The law is threatening enough by itself. It seems unconstitutional to me under the 1st amendment. But if this conservative SCOTUS rules in favor, any enforcement of the law would have to go through lower courts first.

 

In today's polarized political environment, very little, either opinion or fact, finds agreement by the rival sides. The scientific method applies very little to politics. We can see this in the global warming debate where scientific conclusions don't seem to have much relevance to political reality.

[Supposn]

Define 'false hoods' Opinions are subjective, anyone can error in interpreting the facts since the truth may be the fact represented may not be true.

 

DeNova, I do not presume to determine what is a falsehood or if the defendant in a civil case with intent to affect any Ohio political elections did or enabled a falsehood to be conveyed or otherwise published. These would be determined by juries within each individual civil case.

 

Respectfully, Supposn

[Supposn]

The proposed laws sounds like and attempt at political censorship to me. Political falsehoods can be any opinions or factual claims made by the opposition, which are pronounced to be untrue by those with the power; And then punished under the proposed law.

 

The law is threatening enough by itself. It seems unconstitutional to me under the 1st amendment. But if this conservative SCOTUS rules in favor, any enforcement of the law would have to go through lower courts first.

 

In today's polarized political environment, very little, either opinion or fact, finds agreement by the rival sides. The scientific method applies very little to politics. We can see this in the global warming debate where scientific conclusions don't seem to have much relevance to political reality.

 

BluDog, refer to the previous message. U.S. juries generally take their legal obligations very seriously.

 

Plaintiffs of such civil cases could conceivably receive financially great punitive awards but I would suppose in closing arguments, most plaintiffs would more likely sway the jury by seeking a nominal amount. They would argue that their reward would be to have the falsehood publicly acknowledged as a falsehood.

 

Excerpted from the first post of this thread:

As consequences of public officials' admissions of such a false hoods, or if within a court in Ohio they were found personally liable due to such falsehoods, Ohio law (could (be drafted to) recognize those falsehoods as grounds for the office holders to be impeached from their offices.

 

Vulnerability to impeachment does not necessarily mandate that the appropriate governing body must impeach the office holder. The ability or right to impeach does not absolutely mandate that the governing body must impeach.

But there are usually political consequences for obviously grievous failure of a government body to ignore public awareness of any lack of diligence on behalf of the state or the state’s voters.

 

On the other hand I would hope that Ohio and the great preponderance of our other states have stringent requirements to be met in order to remove elected and appointed officials from their offices; impeachments should not be taken lightly.

 

Respectfully, Supposn

[DeNova]

DeNova, I do not presume to determine what is a falsehood or if the defendant in a civil case with intent to affect any Ohio political elections did or enabled a falsehood to be conveyed or otherwise published. These would be determined by juries within each individual civil case.

 

Respectfully, Supposn

 

If juries define what the Legislative branch of the Ohio State government defines as falsehood in the legislation they enacted then they got bigger problems than dishonest politicians.

[Supposn]

 

If juries define what the Legislative branch of the Ohio State government defines as falsehood in the legislation they enacted then they got bigger problems than dishonest politicians.

 

DeNova, a falsehood is knowingly presenting fiction as fact. This obviously becomes more subjective when the question of what a person knows is factored is to be determined. Logic is systematic method of thought. What a defendant professes to believe is not a falsehood simply because it’s illogical or untrue.

 

The questions before Ohio’s civil courts would be if falsehoods were published, did or could the falsehoods have been reasonably expected to affect a political election in Ohio, the defendants’ intents and/or their knowledge.

 

Regardless of civil cases’ defendants’ choices of determination, (i.e. decisions by juries or by judges, those determinators are our only acceptable judges of liability in civil court cases.

 

Respectfully, Supposn

[DeNova]

 

DeNova, I do not presume to determine what is a falsehood

DeNova, a falsehood is knowingly presenting fiction as fact.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

So was it a falsehood when you responded "DeNova, I do not presume to determine what is a falsehood" or when you responded "DeNova, a falsehood is knowingly presenting fiction as fact."

[DeNova]

In today's polarized political environment, very little, either opinion or fact, finds agreement by the rival sides. The scientific method applies very little to politics. We can see this in the global warming debate where scientific conclusions don't seem to have much relevance to political reality.

Really, one would have to crazy to think that Universe was made and then at a later time, whether a day or a billion years that the sun and earth, or even moon was then formed. But still they believe. That might be a reason for this global warming issue is the lack of knowledge and false information about the facts of the earth's origin. {However, added this note that we do have the responsibility to be good stewards of this amazing planet and thankful for the opportunity to even have seen it's beauty and unfortunately some of the darker side that goes along with it.]

 

But I really don't think I comprehend how the celestial bodies didn't originate in unison, during one process, since all matter was supposedly compressed into one primeval

atom. The Biblical creationist hold that the moon was made after the earth was formed, is that even scientifically logical much less possible?

[The Scrutinizer]

And drug testing is a violation of the fourth ammendment. That doesn't seem to bother too many people. Unfortunately people see rights as ok to violate as long as it doesn't affect their lives. Big business and power hungry politics run things these days. They will do as they wish with the blessings of a conservative Supreme Court. Citizens United has seen to that.

[Supposn]

So was it a falsehood when you responded "DeNova, I do not presume to determine what is a falsehood" or when you responded "DeNova, a falsehood is knowingly presenting fiction as fact."

 

DeNova, the statements do not conflict with each other. If I am not the judge or a member of the jury, I do not make the determination of fact or legality in any such court case.

 

Respectfully, Supposn

 

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

Excerpts from my post #7 of 26Apr2014:

 

“DeNova, a falsehood is knowingly presenting fiction as fact. ….

 

… The questions before Ohio’s civil courts would be if falsehoods were published, did or could the falsehoods have been reasonably expected to affect a political election in Ohio, the defendants’ intents and/or their knowledge.

 

 

Regardless of civil cases’ defendants’ choices of determination, (i.e. decisions by juries or by judges, those determinaters are our only acceptable judges of liability in civil court cases”.

 

[DeNova]

DeNova, the statements do not conflict with each other.

So I am suppose to believe you now?

[Supposn]

So I am suppose to believe you now?

DeNova, believe what? You deliberately or inadvertently don’t read the entire post or you don’t understand the English language?

 

Supposn

[yogibear]

Any law made by the republican led legislature should be challenged and scrutinized.