Saturday, October 23, 2010

The Right To Lie


I've recently received a slew of emails in response to one of the statements I've made while doing political commentary on Sirius/XM radio P.O.T.U.S. channel (channel 110/130)

Here's one of the emails:

Sir,
This week on POTUS I heard you make a comment in passing that intrigued me. You said some thing like..
"Congress has already said that forcing candidates too tell the truth is an infringement on their right too free speech."

Please take a moment too let me know too what you were referring. I would like very much to know more.

This was my response to that email:


Here's the deal on the Truth in Advertising laws that my industry is subject to:

When my company creates a campaign for a corporate client, the stuff that we say in that campaign has to be true. If it's not, both my company and my client's company can be sued.

A real world example of this happened in 2004. KFC tried to claim that fried chicken could be part of an effective diet program. The Federal Trade Commission fined the company, required it to pull the commercials AND required KFC to submit all advertising for FTC review for the next 5 years.

Now that's a pretty stiff penalty.

But these laws DO NOT apply to politicians.

Our government has consistently upheld the notion that political ads are a form of "political speech" which fall under the protection of the First Amendment.

Lawyers and politicos will tell you that this is important because voters have the right to uncensored information so that they can better decide for whom to cast their vote.

This "right to lie" that politicians seem to enjoy is further complicated by the Federal Communications Act which dictates that the media MUST run these spots uncensored -- even if they believe the ads to be false or offensive. And not only must TV, Radio and Print outlets run the political ads -- they are obligated by law to sell the air time or ad space to the politicians at the lowest advertising rate.

Here's another real world example of this

In 1972 there was a guy named J.B. Stoner from Georgia ran for US Senate. He called himself a "white racist" and he created an ad that said this: "The main reason why niggers want integration is because niggers want our white women."

Obviously this is type of statement is both false and offensive -- in every sense of the words -- but because of the Federal Communications Act, the FCC forced stations in Atlanta - despite their complaints - to accept and run the ad. The reason, of course, is the "freedom of speech protections"

So the big question is why hasn't congress - a body made up of politicians who continue to get elected in part because they can lie in their political ads - why haven't these guys addressed the issue of truth in political advertising?

hmm...

I hope that is helpful in understanding where I'm coming from on this.

Thanks everyone for listening and for taking the time to write me with your questions and comments.

1 comment:

Pat said...

Politicians, President, nor Congress, (or staff under them) has a right to lie since it would produce illegitimate government, not legitimate government.

The entire FEC code is based upon concerns of legitimate government, and that prerequisite to deliver legitimate government prevails over the obstruction of justice that might produce illegitimate government, i.e., embezzlers with a right to coverup with lies.

That would be treasonable with respect to the integrity of government as legitimate, and therefore fall under white collar crimes within government as high crimes and misdemeanors.

There is no right to lie to consumers, or citizens alike. It is why media and other candidates seek to expose lies of their opponents, and why freedom of speech prevails to expose the lies, not to permit lies.