#105015 by RAE on 10/05 at 3:16 pm
“If I lied to any government agency or agent, I would be arrested and charged.”
***
That would depend on the lie! If you were lying to cover up a crime you committed, you might very well be arrested. That arrest would be for the crime, not the lie. And since there are a multitude of “crimes” now [like being a Mexican stopped and questioned without your “papers” on your person] anytime you have a need to answer a question from an “authority” figure, it’s a good idea to tell the truth ... or play dumb.
***
“Sheldon said the ruling would open the door to “all kinds of negative campaigning.”
***
This implies negative campaigning doesn’t happen now! It happens. Why are people like Karl Rove successful?

The need for truth rests on the shoulders of those who want it. But sadly to many people like to be lied too. And to many others don’t care. As long as people accept being lied to, the lying will continue ... law or no law. Perhaps the mistake Sheldon made was not challenging his opponent immediately, in open court under existing liable laws. Politicians seem to be afraid to do that, believing I suppose, it will just go away. But not taking forceful action immediately following the lie can be used by the liar, “See ... his silence is an admission of guilt.”

We saw the most perfect example of that when John Kerry tried to ignore the Swift-Boat Liars. His refusal to immediately take legal liable action to silence them led to the impression among the ill-informed that the lies were true!

I agree with the majority view in the decision:

“The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the 1st Amendment,” Justice James Johnson wrote.

“Rickert said the ruling would elevate political debate: People who choose to criticize the government should not live in fear that something they say may be misinterpreted or may be inaccurate unknown to them,” she said. “There’s always going to be disagreement. The fact that people don’t need to live in fear or be called up to a tribunal, I think that should be a great relief.”

Punishing people for lying was and is one of the most powerful tools used by totalitarian rulers in the past and the present. Because it falls to them to decide whether or not what you say is true. And that would lead to people being afraid to say anything! We don’t want to go there!

There are ample laws on the books to challenge lying. Particularly in the case when the liable has damaged someone’s credibility or decency. We have ample examples of that occurring in the political arena. We also have ample examples of the politicians who were attacked not using their legal right to haul the offenders into court! That’s the one I don’t understand.

Gossip often is nothing more than lying. Someone hears something that may or may not be true and repeats it. Usually adding a bit of their own fantasy on the way. Gossips don’t see themselves as dangerous liars, but often as not they are. But in defense of those who repeat something that’s true, which might ultimately lead to righting a wrong ... we can never place them in a position where they might be charged with a crime for speaking out. I don’t understand why people cant understand that.

Everybody lies. The challenge is for people to ask, “How do you know that?” And if the knowledge comes second or third hand don’t place to much value on it. That’s as true with politics as it is with the neighbor who loves to gossip.

Had this decision gone the other way, does anyone seriously believe politicians and potentates and corporate moguls would immediately start being honest?

Come on folks ... you’re smarter than that.

Scooter Libby set the groundwork for the rest of the pack, we need not know the truth, that is for the elite only.  Lies keep coming like the energizer bunny and some of us lap them up like candy.

If I lied to any government agency or agent, I would be arrested and charged.

It seems, however, that any government agency or agent may lie to me with impunity.

By some convoluted logic this apparently is fair play to those who manage things in the USA.

The justices, in claiming it is up to the “people” to be the “final arbiter of truth” which, of course, would be just fine except for one small problem. If one of us - the people - claimed one of our agencies or agents was lying, we would either be ignored or subpoenaed or in some other way relegated to the dust heap of insignificance by those in power.

“The People” is a meaningless term when the individual is irrelevant.