Constitutional Law,
Letters,
U.S. Supreme Court
May 13, 2014
A 'ministry of truth' is preferable to 'the falsity of the wealthy'
Re: "A state-sponsored 'ministry of truth,'" April 30.
Joel Drum
In his recent article, Charles Doskow concludes that, "The First Amendment should not be read to allow ... a state-sponsored 'ministry of truth.'" This raises the question of whether he (and the apparent court majority) care at all about truth in political campaigns. ["A state-sponsored 'ministry of truth,'" April 30].
Free speech in a campaign has a purpose: to provide the electorate with information from which it can make an intelligent decision as to the candidates or issue. I defy anyone to come up with any statement from our initial Congress to the effect that the First Amendment was enacted for, among other purposes, to allow one candidate to win election through objectively false statements about an opponent. Yet, though perhaps not the intent, this is the goal that Doskow furthers. If there is nobody that determines whether or not a political statement is objectively false then there is no limitation to the improper ways that one side can use to win an election. This should be the circumstance only if we do not want honest elections. Theorists would say that the falsity of a statement will become known. Such theorists have their heads in the sand. It is well known that the vast majority of the electorate relies on billboards and commercials in making their decisions; these people will not learn of the truth. The only remedy is to punish falsity, as the Ohio law at issue in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, No. 13-193, does. It is arguable that the issue in Driehaus is a close one - through a very technical reading of Obamacare (a.k.a., the Affordable Care Act), one could argue that it allows for taxpayer funding of abortions. On the other hand, an honest presentation of the issue would include the fact that the congressman voted for Obamacare, which funds, for many taxpayers, and requires coverage for abortions. But that, of course, is not the message the billboard proponents want; their goal was to mislead for the benefit of their candidate and issue. Once more this is not the purpose, at all, of the First Amendment. I think the country is better off is truth is a hallmark of elections. It may be difficult at times to discern that, but that is no reason to reject the idea in every election. I would rather have a "ministry of truth" than "the falsity of the wealthy," which is what we now have.Submit your own column for publication to Diana Bosetti
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com