- Michael Bloomberg thumbs FAA ban, plots course to Israel
- California bans full-contact football practices in off-season
- Thune: Downed fighter jets show more evidence of separatist capabilities
- Obama tells DNC fundraising crowd: ‘I’m not overly partisan’
- Chambliss: Downed jet ultimately goes back to Putin
- Perdue strategy: Run against Reid, Obama, Pelosi
- White House: More changes to contraception mandate coming
- ‘Operation Normandy’ set to send 3,500 volunteers to border to ‘stop an invasion’
- Netanyahu’s spokesman: Safe to fly to Israel
- Oregon vandals smear cars with doughnuts, pastries, chocolate bars
HARPER: No need for truth panels to police campaign speech
Question of the Day
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week on an important lawsuit concerning freedom of speech, but many news organizations failed to report on the issue.
Maybe that’s because a pro-life group brought the lawsuit and may win a significant victory before the court.
The Washington Times gave the case the prominence it deserved — a challenge to an Ohio law that severely restricts freedom of speech during political campaigns. More than a dozen other states have similar laws.
The case, Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, involves the Ohio Elections Commission, which can criminally punish anyone for knowingly or recklessly publishing a “false” claim about a political candidate. During the 2010 election the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life group, wanted to advertise that then-Rep. Steve Driehaus, an Ohio Democrat, had supported government funding of abortion by voting for the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, the anti-abortion group prepared a billboard that read: “Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion.”
Mr. Driehaus, who claimed he did not support abortion, filed a complaint based on the state’s law with the commission, which voted to conduct a formal hearing on the matter. As a result, the advertising company declined to erect the billboard during the 2010 midterm campaign.
I believe the Ohio law and others like it clearly violate the First Amendment by chilling free speech. Moreover, it would be extremely difficult to determine exactly what could be considered true or false in a political campaign. For example, did President Obama lie when he told voters they could keep their doctors and their medical insurance policies under the Affordable Care Act, or was he simply misinformed? The voters tend to listen to the various arguments put forward during a campaign and decide whom they believe.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments concerning a technical issue in the case — whether the pro-life group could actually challenge the law because Mr. Driehaus later dropped his complaint — the justices seemed troubled about the constitutionality of government policing of political speech.
Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Ohio State Solicitor Eric Murphy: “Don’t you think there’s a serious First Amendment concern with a state law that requires you to come before a commission to justify what you are going to say?”
Justice Samuel Alito Jr. added that “arguably there’s a great chilling of core First Amendment speech.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said groups accused of lying might suffer harm even if they are not prosecuted: “They’re brought before the commission, they have to answer this charge that they lied, that they made a false statement,” she said during the oral arguments. “And just that alone is going to diminish the effect of their speech because they have been labeled false speakers, and it costs money to defend before the commission, right?”
While the conservative and liberal wings of the court seemed ready to challenge the law, so, too, did groups on the right and the left join forces to contest the provision. For example, the ACLU supported the pro-life group’s stance that the Ohio law violated freedom of speech. Moreover, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, a Republican whose office had to defend the law, filed a personal brief that raised constitutional doubts about his state’s statute.
As the 2014 election campaign begins, concerns persist that the Ohio law and others like it will inhibit candidates and their supporters from pointing out inconsistencies in the actions and statements of opponents. Unfortunately, many news outlets ignored this important issue — one on which the left and the right seemed to agree for a change.
• Christopher Harper is a professor at Temple University. He worked for more than 20 years at The Associated Press, Newsweek, ABC News and “20/20.” He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org. Twitter: @charper51.
About the Author
Christopher Harper is a professor of journalism at Temple University. He worked for The Associated Press, Newsweek, ABC News and “20/20” for more than 20 years. He can be contacted at email@example.com.
- HARPER: Media should be more skeptical of academic work
- HARPER: A lack of coverage when media giants misbehave
- HARPER: A justice's argument overridden by a media agenda
- HARPER: For political junkies, a trio of books to kick off 2016 presidential campaign
- HARPER: In Iraq, truth is the first casualty of war
TWT Video Picks
Retailer pays a price for getting too close to Obama
Get Breaking Alerts
- CARSON: Costco and the perils of mixing politics and business
- Two Ukrainian fighter jets shot down
- House task force to recommend National Guard on border, faster deportations
- David Perdue defeats Jack Kingston in Georgia Republican Senate primary runoff
- HURT: The cost of 'free' water in Detroit
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine
- Beretta moving to Tennessee over Maryland gun laws
- DEACE: How to go from civil rights icon to bigot in one quote
- D.C. appeals panel deals big blow to Obamacare subsidies
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives