False Ads: There Oughtta Be A Law! Or -- Maybe Not.
(a) . . . If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section.
- Federal Communications Act, (US Code: Title 47, Sec. 315. - Candidates for public office)
You listen to the crap put out by "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" or to just about anything put out by the Bush campaign, and you think: "What a load of crap! There oughta be a law...." And perhaps there should be, but consider this: how exactly DO you outlaw speech you disagree with without outlawing speech you DO agree with? Who will be the ultimate arbiter of truth? I'm assuming, of course, that, since you won't be writing and enforcing such a law yourself, some legally responsible body will have to do that. OK, so who DOES make the decision? And what happens what that same body outlaws a form of expression that you support?
Here's a fact that may surprise you: candidates have a legal right to lie to voters just about as much as they want.
That comes as a shock to many voters. After all, consumers have been protected for decades from false ads for commercial products. Shouldn't there be "truth-in-advertising" laws to protect voters , too?
Turns out, that's a tougher question than you might imagine.
For one thing, the First Amendment to the US Constitution says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech," and that applies to candidates for office especially. And secondly, in the few states that have tried laws against false political ads, they haven't been very effective....
But there's no such truth-in-advertising law governing federal candidates. They can legally lie about almost anything they want. In fact, the Federal Comunications Act even requires broadcasters who run candidate ads to show them uncensored, even if the broadcasters believe their content to be offensive or false.
This is taken very seriously. In a 1972 case, the Federal Communications Commission forced stations in Atlanta, GA to accept a paid political ad from JB Stoner -- a self-proclaimed "white racist" running for the U.S. Senate on the National States Rights party ticket. The NAACP objected to Stoner's ad because it said the "main reason why niggers want integration is because niggers want our white women." The FCC sided with Stoner, citing freedom of speech decisions of the Supreme Court.
Here in America, free speech can be- and very often is- offensive speech. Of course, being that this is a free country, we can determine whether or not we expose ourselves to offensive speech. While all Americans have the right to free speech and expression, that freedom also means we can tune out whatever and whomever we choose, for whatever reason(s) we choose. It's the political version of the age-old question: if a political troll opens his mouth and no one is there to hear him (or her), does that troll even generate a sound bite?
This is no mere academic excercise. I am offended as anyone about some of the vile, hateful crap spewed into the public debate by the Rabid Right. Nonetheless, free speech being what it is, I have to support their right to spew forth, because- trust me on this- you do NOT want me to be the one making the call on what is acceptable speech and what is not. Let's just say that Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh would schlepping golf bags for a living down the street at Doral Country Club.
What some among us find vile and offensive is another's Gospel truth. Of course, there is one surefire way to steer clear of the controversy and the backwash. Turn off the TV, turn off the radio, and curl up in your hammock with a good book until November 3rd. It should be safe to come out about then.
Damn that Bill of Rights....
