U.S. Supreme Court justices criticize Ohio law criminalizing political lies

The U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to throw out an Ohio law banning lies during election campaigns. An anti-abortion group sued in federal court on the grounds that the law chills free speech. Those found guilty of violating the law could pay a fine of $5,000 and six months in jail. Justices seemed unimpressed by the Ohio state officials’ arguments that allegations of chill did not trump the harm done by “malicious falsity.”(Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 22, 2014, by Sabrina Eaton)

Under the law citizens could face charges before a state election commission during a campaign. “They have to answer this charge that they lied, and just that alone is going to diminish the effect of their speech,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (Politico, April 22, 2014, by Paige Winfield Cunningham)

Michael A. Carvin and Yaakov M. Roth in The Wall Street Journal, April 18, 2014, argue that the issue was not a matter of the “right to lie” but rather the disturbing effect of placing a burden on citizens to defend the “truth” of statements in a political debate. “The premise of the First Amendment is that the people should decide what is ‘true’ and what is ‘false’ in the political arena, and punish or reward political candidates at the ballot box. Political fact-checking is not a task for courts of law. Criminal penalties should not hang over the heads of speakers who disagree with their version of political ‘truth,'” write Carvin and Roth.