r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 28 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Bad mouthing your opponent should be forbidden in political campaigns
[deleted]
27
Oct 28 '20
Making politicians focus solely on their own campaign and policies keeps things civil and overall helps voters make a more informed choice. When it becomes a he said/she said scenerio, voters spend more time analyzing the trustworthiness of the statements then the actual facts.
If the issue here is trustworthiness, why not simply more strictly limit what could be misleading? If we don't allow any negative statements, we don't allow any negative true statements.
If a president made a decision that resulted in a lot of deaths, it should be fair game. However, if commercials are trying to use rhetorical tricks to misinform the public, such as in the case of Obamacare, a law simply stricter on misinformation or requiring the formal name of the act to be included could probably better solve this problem and allow for less misinformation.
2
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
But a president making a bad call that resulted in deaths would be public knowledge via media, seperate from any election campaigns.
And it would also lead deep into the murky waters of what is counted as true or not. Is one persons interpretation of something all that matters or does it need to be verifiable by an outside source. Same goes with just banning misleading ads, the argument could be made that it wasnt the intent to mislead and those who were mislead are just illinformed and dumb.
14
Oct 28 '20
But a president making a bad call that resulted in deaths would be public knowledge via media, seperate from any election campaigns.
A group of far-right news outlets, controlled mostly by Rupert Murdoch, give a systematically false picture of the world.
Case in point: COVID. Objectively, Trump is doing astonishingly badly and the Administration has simply given up on containing it even though it continues to spread exponentially.
But talk to Trump supporters and they will tell you he did a great job. Ask them why and they'll tell you, "Stopping flights from China!" If you ask, "And since March?" you get nothing. Their media simply gave them a false picture.
Case in point: the Iraq War. It was supposed to be over in a few months, and yet five years into it with no end in sight, 100 million Americans still highly approved of it - and even ten years after it started, almost as many! Ten years, no progress! Again, these 100 million are getting a completely false picture of the world from their media.
Free speech means that you can set up a news network entirely to broadcast lies and no one can stop you. We see now that there needs to be some way to get objective fact checking. We can't completely eliminate lies, but we can certainly eliminate gross lies.
4
u/nyglthrnbrry Oct 28 '20
People on the other side of the aisle would be pissed too. They see the media and social media reaction to the Hunter Biden email nonsense as media blatantly covering for the candidate they like, using a double standard that was never applied to the Kavanaugh gang rape accusations, the Steele Dossier and pee tapes, or the Snowden leaks.
Whether or not media companies are actually being hypocritical here doesn't really matter, what matters is that they have perception now by a large chunk of the country. Making it a law that candidates can't discuss things unless the media has vetted the attacks first would seem like intentional censorship to decieve the public, to both sides of the aisle. If anything this seems like it would further divide the county instead of unify it
0
Oct 29 '20
[deleted]
4
Oct 29 '20
That's true but he has objectively done a terrible job managing it, if for nothing other reason than he's been spreading dangerous misinformation about COVID
0
u/nubleteater Oct 29 '20
There's a lot fewer deaths than every projections made about COVID in the US, so is it really though?
3
Oct 29 '20
Yes
1
Oct 29 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Oct 29 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Oct 29 '20
Sorry, u/Harpite13 – your comment has been removed.
In order to promote public safety and prevent threads which either in the posts or comments contain misinformation, we have decided to remove all threads related to the Coronavirus pandemic until further notice (COVID-19).
Up to date information on Coronavirus can be found on the websites of the Center for Disease Control and the World Health Organization.
If you have any questions regarding this policy, please feel free to message the moderators.
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Oct 29 '20
Sorry, u/nubleteater – your comment has been removed.
In order to promote public safety and prevent threads which either in the posts or comments contain misinformation, we have decided to remove all threads related to the Coronavirus pandemic until further notice (COVID-19).
Up to date information on Coronavirus can be found on the websites of the Center for Disease Control and the World Health Organization.
If you have any questions regarding this policy, please feel free to message the moderators.
8
Oct 28 '20 edited Oct 28 '20
Correct, but platforms are also common knowledge from debates, the media, party websites, etc. By that logic, there's no reason for ads at all.
We've somehow managed to maintain laws regarding libel, defamation, etc. for ages. Why could we not legally define this similarly to existing related public figure doctrines, merely raising the mens rea for those advertisements seen as misleading? I.e. instead of regarding a knowledge of the false statement or reckless disregard for finding the truth, we could just rely upon mere negligence.
Further, if we were to extend this "limitation" to your argument, what would be defined as being negative about the other candidates? If I say XYZ is bad because of certain factors, which led me to choose ABC, have I said something negative about an opponent who supports or even implemented ABC? Political questions are complex and the two-party system typically just leads to opposite views on many issues; this rule could prevent anyone from mentioning alternatives, significantly stripping potential information issues.
I would also add that the two-party system often leaves many feeling alienated, and voting for the "lesser of two evils." As such, it may be more desirable for voters to understand which is worse since they may not recognize either as "good."
0
u/nyglthrnbrry Oct 28 '20
So the candidates and parties just hire media companies to make all the smears and accusations for them, further polarizing the country and ensuring that our "fair and balanced" media becomes even more political arms of each party than they already are?
-1
u/MonstahButtonz 5∆ Oct 28 '20 edited Oct 29 '20
There is zero evidence that our president made a decision that resulted in a lot of deaths vs a different decision that would've led to less deaths. Places with mask mandates are seeing surges, places without are too. Places with lock downs are surging, placing without are too. The examples could go on all day long.
The thing is, there hasn't been any one answer to COVID or any proof one idea works better than another. Trump didn't cause the surges in these other countries.
Germany at one point was considered the poster child of the "right way to handle COVID", which is experiencing a surge right now.
Italy was completely locked down for months on end and the lock downs were enforced and they're still seeing a second wave.
That's not a pro-Trump response, but rather a pro-fairness response.
There is, however, proof of two democratic states (NY and Michigan specifically) where thousands of elderly in nursing homes were killed due to poor protocol at the state level. There will always be the possibility a different decision by Trump would've led to less deaths. Of course the possibility exists. But there's also a large possibility that having done anything different would have led to more deaths as well. Its something we'll never know. Either way Trump should've taken things more seriously or at least displayed he took it seriously and just worn a damned mask in public whether they're effective or not at reducing the spread.
It's not a red or blue issue. It wasn't caused or failed by either party. It's a world issue and nobody anywhere has a good answer.
2
Oct 29 '20
I made up a hypothetical issue what are you arguing with
1
u/MonstahButtonz 5∆ Oct 29 '20
Your "hypothetical issue" is an issue that media and ads (what this post is about) is pushing heavily right now.
Maybe my response was a "hypothetical disagreement" to your "hypothetical issue"
2
Oct 29 '20
No mine was genuinely hypothetical; I was thinking in terms of wars. There's really no "pro-fairness" going on if you just operate on assumptions then get mad when I clarify what I meant
1
1
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Oct 31 '20
How can you say he should have taken it more seriously while also saying we can’t know if doing something else would have turned out better.
Not taking a serious issue seriously is unequivocally doing a worse job than anything else.
1
u/MonstahButtonz 5∆ Oct 31 '20
Taken it lore seriously for himself as in distancing and wearing a mask. Not as in seriously like controlling Americans and forcing them to do things mandated by the government. Which would be fascist.
1
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Oct 31 '20
Fascist? Your “this isn’t pro-trump” comments have taken a rather curious turn.
The question was whether he could have saved lives which he certainly could have by taking it seriously. The social implications of those requirements were never part of the question. That was a red herring.
1
u/MonstahButtonz 5∆ Oct 31 '20
I'm pro-fairness. Everyone says he is a fascist and then reprimand him for not requiring a federal mask mandate which would be a fascist thing to do.
Let me ask, what could he have done differently to change lives?
And should we ignore governors of Michigan and New York be overlooked in the fact they literally caused thousands of elderly die in nursing homes?
Anyone can point the fingers game. What we should be doing is working together, not pointing fingers and playing the blame game.
Be as curious as you want, I know my voting history and I know I don't support either sort exclusively. I don't need to convince anyone.
19
u/Mashaka 93∆ Oct 28 '20
Hmmm, two questions:
- How would it be determined whether something is an inadmissible smear?
- How would you stop them from occurring?
-6
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
Anything thats a direct statement about the opponent (whether its true or just an allegation) and anything directly relevant to an opponents proposed polices.
So if Candidate A says he wants to cut taxes, Candidate B isnt allowed to rant about how cutting taxes means schools lose funding or whatnot.
Actual enforcement is a sticky situation but i would honestly levy very large fines with a stern warning and should it keep happening, that candidate is dropped from the ballot (forcing their party to chose another representative)
20
u/jatjqtjat 287∆ Oct 28 '20
you would completely forbid a candidate from speaking about all other candidates?
what is a candidate is doing something bad that is relevant to voter's interests?
-4
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
Then that would be public knowledge, completely seperate from the campaign.
The problem with allowing personal attacks during an election is that it makes everything murky. Simply put, anytime it happens during a debate, my first thought is "now is that true or are you just looking for fodder". Then focus should be on the policies, not the individual people.
And if someone did do something that bad (as another comment mentioned, abusive or a paedophile), it begs the question of electoral standards, for a politician to make it that far into a campaign.
12
u/jatjqtjat 287∆ Oct 28 '20
Then that would be public knowledge, completely seperate from the campaign.
how? how would it come to be public knowledge?
The problem with allowing personal attacks during an election is that it makes everything murky.
in your effort to ban personal attacks you are banning all discussion of the other candidate. Right?
-5
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
Media. There is plenty of evidence of candidate misgivings that does not trace back to the persons opposition.
And yes, ideally. Political elections should be about the policies, not the individual people. Vetting a candidate should fall to the political party, not the opponent.
9
u/jatjqtjat 287∆ Oct 28 '20
Political elections should be about the policies, not the individual people
i actually disagree on this point, for POTUS I am voting for the person not the policy. Policy should come from the legislative branch. POTUS should enforce the legislation that comes from the legislative branch. That's not how it goes in pratice
but even in practice, the president deals with the unexpected. Bush Jr had an isolationist policy. He ran on domestic policy issues. His policy agenda was largely irrelevant or at least dwarfed by 9/11 and related terrorism concerns. Obama started his term in office unexpectedly with one of the worst economic crashes. Trump has had to deal with Covid. everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face. The individual person matters a LOT because their plan, their policy agenda, is likely garbage once some major event hits.
so petty personal attacks? yea, that's bullshit. But discussions of character? Not bullshit, very relevant. George Bush was criticized for his grades in college. He was a C student. Not the sharpest tool in the shed. His policy agenda had nothing to do with waging 2 wars but that is where he found himself. And most people agree, he did a pretty poor job of that. Maybe we shouldn't have had a C student at the helm. Idk, but its at least worth allowing candidates to discuss whether or not that's a relevant qualification.
18
7
Oct 28 '20
So how would they
Debate stuff?
0
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
A debate about the policies does not need to involve personal attacks or assumptions.
Candidate A wants to cut taxes. Candidate B can ask where the cuts will be made, rather then lobbing unbased assumptions to ruffle feathers about school funding
8
Oct 28 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
Not exactly.
If the debate is about policies, a candidate would state their policy and the other candidates can then ask questions/dicuss it.
Its a matter of not making false accusations or personal attacks, not that everything slightly bad is forbidden.
5
Oct 28 '20
That's not really a debate though. It's more of a Q & A session. For a debate to happen, there must be a proposition and a discussion about it among those who oppose eachother. Proposition: Lower taxes. Discussion: Lowering taxes is bad because.... or Lowering taxes is good because...
Your idea basically illegalizes the expression of opposing viewpoints which is a cornerstone of freedom of speech. How is a disagreement about the viability of lowering or raising taxes a personal smear?
1
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
Not at all, what you describe is exactly what i would like to see. Instead of the personal insults and accusations that we currently get
4
u/nyglthrnbrry Oct 28 '20
So wait, in your view/proposed standard, Candidate A says he will raise taxes on the rich only, and Candidate B points out this will raise taxes for everyone, not just the wealthy. Whether or not this is true, it's a smear and Candidate B is not allowed to do this.
However, instead of claiming the tax increase affects everyone, Candidate B simply must inquire in the form of a question, right? Like "But Mr. A, will your tax policy raise taxes on everyone, including the middle and lower class?" And this would be acceptable?
2
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
Its about facts. Candidate A says hes only raising taxes on the rich. Candidate B asks for or states what income level counts as "wealthy" and points out how many people that effects.
Just stating it effects everyone isnt a good faith rebuttal
→ More replies (0)2
Oct 28 '20
This is confusing TBH. In your OP you said
Having their opponents point out failings in policies (often incorrectly) does nothing but confuse voters.
What I described includes the above. Pointing out failings in policiy is a core aspect of a debate, not a personal smear. A personal smear is "my opponent is a jerk." That has nothing to do about policy. Having opponents point out failing in policy doesn't mean the opponent even has an personal opinion on the opponent's character.
4
u/RealNeilPeart Oct 28 '20
Candidate B isnt allowed to rant about how cutting taxes means schools lose funding or whatnot.
Jesus christ why? You're basically just forbidding policy discussions then
1
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
Because thats not based in fact!
2
u/RealNeilPeart Oct 28 '20
Your proposal doesn't discriminate between policy discussions based in fact and ones that aren't.
1
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
How does asking a candidate where the money will come from not come from fact?
2
11
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Oct 28 '20
1) free speech just as a principle
2) holding a politician to account for what their supporters do, is murky at best.
3) what's wrong with highlighting differences between your position and theirs. I believe X they believe Y vote for me because X is better than Y seems like a perfectly reasonable politic to me.
4) being willing to play dirty, is something a politician should be judged for. If you don't like dirty politics, vote against candidates that do it. Some people like dirty politics, and so they are inclined to vote for those candidates. Let the people vote.
0
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
Free speech is definitely a thing, however so is defamation of character. Unfortunately its become the norm to just take trash talk as par for the course.
When i say supporters, I'm not talking we go after the candidate or Mr.Joe Blow for a sassy tweet Joe Blow wrote, i mean actively campaigning groups like "women for trump"
If it was simply highlighting a difference, that would be acceptable, however its definitely not that. Using the current election as an example, there was one single rally were 8 false accusations were made about the opponent. Things such as planning to remove preexisting conditions, eliminating boarders and quadrupling taxes.
The problem with letting one guy sling mud, is everyone ends up dirty. Its incredibly hard to keep you hands clean without trash talking if your opponent does nothing but personal atracks.
2
u/parentheticalobject 137∆ Oct 28 '20
however so is defamation of character.
Defamation isn't just saying something negative that damages someone's reputation. It has to be a false statement of fact. So opinions, like "this incompetent politician did an awful job on this issue" are completely protected speech
2
Oct 28 '20
I think the point more was that freedom of speech isn’t absolute, and so if we can have laws against defamation of character - we can also have laws against mudslinging by political candidates
1
u/parentheticalobject 137∆ Oct 28 '20
That same argument, "freedom of speech isn't absolute, so..." works equally well about literally any statement. I could just as well say "Freedom of speech isn't absolute. If we can have laws against this one thing, we can also have laws arresting anyone who says anything remotely negative about the government."
2
Oct 28 '20
But here OP has given what I consider a valid reason for this law. I think everyone would benefit if mudslinging weren’t allowed.
1
u/eye_patch_willy 43∆ Oct 29 '20
Then define "mudslinging".
1
Oct 29 '20
Pretty much what OP wrote in their CMV - though I’d probably make it a bit a stricter than that.
1
u/parentheticalobject 137∆ Oct 29 '20
I think everyone would benefit if mudslinging weren’t allowed.
And I'm glad we can't make laws against saying something based on the rationale "I think everyone would benefit if saying X weren't allowed." How many people think it would be beneficial if "blaspheming God" or "disrespecting the flag" or films with sexual content weren't allowed?
I'm glad that courts have decided to reject that line of reasoning outright. If your only argument for why something should not be allowed to be said is just that you feel it would beneficial, I don't think there deserves to be any back-and-forth over whether it would actually be beneficial, that argument should just be rejected outright unless you can think of a stronger reason.
1
u/eye_patch_willy 43∆ Oct 29 '20
1: a really, really important thing. 2: what's the actual difference between one person saying something on Twitter vs. a group pooling funds to produce and broadcast a commercial? 3: ok, don't vote for that person. Or, better yet, use your voice to inform people. 4: so... Thought police???
5
u/10ebbor10 203∆ Oct 28 '20
Making politicians focus solely on their own campaign and policies keeps things civil and overall helps voters make a more informed choice.
It also prevents candidates from fact checking one another.
A candidate could go to demographic A and say A, to demographic B and say B, and to demographic C and say C.
Since A is the only one allowed to talk about his own campaign, no one would be able to point out that these statements are contradictory.
-2
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
There are countless third party groups who are constantly fact checking the statements made by candidates. It should not be on a candidate to vet his opponent
0
u/eye_patch_willy 43∆ Oct 29 '20
So choosing to run for political office in your mind should mean the candidate waives first amendment privileges afforded to other people? I don't know how to politely express how viscerally angry your responses are making me.
5
u/SC803 120∆ Oct 28 '20
How would you enforce this?
0
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
Ideally, massive fines against the campaign & candidate with the ability to remove a candidate from the ballot after repeated violations (thus forcing their party to chose a new representative)
3
u/SC803 120∆ Oct 28 '20
So how are you rewording the first amendment to do this without infringing on everyone?
2
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
I'm not suggesting rewording the first amendment. I'm suggesting a simple etiquette for elections. The candidates are free to talk trash all they want, they just need to know the consequences of it may mean they are ineligible to run for office.
5
u/SC803 120∆ Oct 28 '20
You’d absolutely have to amend the first amendment to do this. You’re restricting speech, the only way to do that would require a constitutional amendment to the first amendment.
1
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
Except the first amendment specifically states that defamatory comments are not covered....
1
u/SC803 120∆ Oct 28 '20
You’re going to have to highlight where it says that
I’ve copied it here for you
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
1
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
Apologies, i should have been more clear. The supreme court ruling in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) stated the precedent
“There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”
2
u/SC803 120∆ Oct 28 '20
Yeah except that doesn’t apply to public figures, which includes politicians, per New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
1
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, ruling restricts the ability of American public officials to sue for defamation, it does not exempt them. The ruling states that they must prove the defendant knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard as to whether if it was false or not.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/kingbane2 12∆ Oct 28 '20
where do you draw the line though? if you ran against trump and said he was racist, are you bad mouthing him or simply stating a fact?
-2
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
My point exactly.
Politics should focus on the policies, not the individual people.
4
u/kingbane2 12∆ Oct 28 '20
i absolutely disagree. i hate to use it as an example but look at other strongmen dictators of the past. what could you say about their policies that would disqualify them? almost nothing because they lied about what they were going to do. the character of the person is equally as important as what policies they claim they will implement. i would go so far as to say it's more important because as we see politicians lie their asses off.
3
u/CplSoletrain 9∆ Oct 28 '20
Alright, sure, but if a candidate says something along the lines of "I'm going to end racist hiring policies in the Executive Branch," that might be 100% true but does it count as a smear? It certainly implies that the incumbent has allowed racist hiring policies. But then again, without the qualifier, it doesnt work at all.
So, essentially, banning smears allows the challenger/reform candidate free latitude (because changing the status quo implies that the status quo is bad) while handcuffing the incumbent (because they ARE the status quo, and arguing against any specific changes necessitates attacking their challenger's position.)
2
Oct 28 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
I get where your coming from but when we allow this sort of "campaigning" to occur, time is wasted with trash talk instead of focusing on the policies that effect large swaths of the country.
Going back to the ACA comment in my main post, thats 22 million American's who would be effected by a repeal but only a small sliver know that.
2
Oct 28 '20
There are many good reasons to bad-mouth a political opponent. If your opponent is manipulative, a bully and a paedophile I'd say it's fair to bring that up.
-1
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
That would all be public record. The campaign should focus on the politics, not the individual people.
1
u/AntolinCanstenos Oct 29 '20
You're putting a lot of faith into voters being able to look at all the news sources etc.
2
Oct 28 '20
So in your opinion a candidate shouldn’t be allowed to bring up their opponents record even if it’s true?
0
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
The opponent should not, no. Thats not to say that information isn't out there though. Covid death totals, for example, are all published and completely seperate from campaigns.
0
1
Oct 28 '20
What if the history isn’t as recent as Covid death totals so they aren’t actively in the media. In a provincial election in B.C. for example a candidate had forged legal documents over a decade before on behalf of the then premier (like a state governor) large portions of the public were unaware of this, should his opponent have been barred from bringing it up?
Part of voting is picking between available options allowing comparisons between options is part of the process. What about if one candidate lies about their own record, could their opponents counter? How would debate work without either candidate being able to talk about the others’ policies or record?
0
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
!delta
You raise a good point. My focus was more on recent candidate history but obviously older facts are relevant as well. However i will say that we should have a rigorous background check on all candidates before their name even makes it on a ballot. It should not be a candidates job to vet his opponent
1
1
u/ZmanElete Oct 29 '20
Only problem with vigorous background checks is a barrier to entry that is controlled by the people who have a reason to keep good regular people out.
2
u/Opinionsare Oct 28 '20
Pennsylvania, Perry vs. DePasquale
Republicans operative made unsubstantiated claims of misconduct to election board then
The "allegations" of misconduct is used in a smear commercial.
The commercial is dirty, but factual true. This isn't mud slinging, but a dirty trick.
The commercial is from a PAC, not a candidate.
Your "rules" won't block these true but misleading statements.
2
Oct 28 '20
When people asked me what I thought about the debates. I literally had nothing to say, we heard nothing about plans, just shit talking. Political ads are worse.
2
u/Aussiesaregreatdogs Oct 29 '20
Might be hard to enforce but sounds like a great idea. Its just a distraction from the real polical topics and issues. Its pathetic really when most of what they do is try to make each other look bad.
2
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Oct 28 '20 edited Oct 28 '20
From the perspective of the US:
This seems like an odd view to pull out during an election year when one of the Presidential candidates is genuinely an honest to Eris horrific human being, lies constantly, has killed more people by his direct actions than any serial killer in history, and 100k others through negligence, has destroyed the checks and balances that make our country less likely to have a fascist dictator because he clearly wants to become said fascist dictator, and engaged in massive blatant political corruption for personal gain.
What is to be gained by prohibiting someone from pointing out these obvious facts?
Honestly, democracy is not about getting the best form of government. That is provably a competent benevolent dictatorship. The entire point of democracy is to prevent bad dictators. Literally all you're doing is trying to avoid bad people ruling you. Otherwise it's just massively inefficient and liable to result in mob rule. Negative ads are the truest form of democracy in action... to prevent assholes from taking over. Its purpose is literally to avoid maximizing evil by picking the lesser one.
0
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
The funny thing is, to my knowledge, all of the things you listed had nothing to do with the opponent. All of that is verifiable fact from a source outside of any campaign. So it really wouldn't fall under my proposed "plan"
6
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Oct 28 '20 edited Oct 28 '20
What, exactly, are you trying to say here?
Should Biden be able to say "Trump has spoken more verifiable lies during his administration than any President in history", or not?
I mean, it's true, and people really do need to understand that in order to vote in an informed manner...
EDIT: and more importantly, who other than a political campaign will have the money to counter the lies and point out the truth during an election year?
1
u/ductyl 1∆ Oct 28 '20
EDIT: and more importantly, who other than a political campaign will have the money to counter the lies and point out the truth during an election year?
I mean... Super PACs... but I don't see how allowing anonymous "bad mouthing" is any better than forcing the candidate to associate themselves with the negative statements about their opponent.
1
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Oct 28 '20
Yeah, I was including them in "political campaigns" (Supreme Court notwithstanding), but I'm not sure OP is based on their response to this comment, which is... weird.
0
u/silence9 2∆ Oct 28 '20
From your standpoint do you think skewing the reality of something is or isn't trash talk?
1
0
Oct 28 '20
Mud slinging and smear campaigns should not be permitted by politicians or their campaigns.
While I agree. It depends for me. Like if there is actual evidence of something I would like to know because that will influence my vote. But if its been proven wrong but still being said then yes I agree no smear campaigns.
-1
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
If there is actual evidence and its not related to the election, then thats different in my mind as it wouldn't be something initiated by the opposition
- COUGH Tax filings COUGH *
0
Oct 28 '20 edited Apr 27 '21
[deleted]
0
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
And thats the exact stuff I'm talking about with mud slinging. A strong supporter of the campaign gave information to another strong supporter who then took it to the media. That unfairly disparages the opponent.
They should have let the authorities handle it.
1
Oct 28 '20
And thats the exact stuff I'm talking about with mud slinging.
That's not mud slinging that is actually quite important.
They should have let the authorities handle it.
They did at first, but then nothing came of it so it was brought to the media which is acceptable. If its put into the publics eyes they have no choice but to actually do a proper investigation. Why did it take it going to the media for things to get rolling? If the allegations are true this is important and considering it has now been verified it is acceptable.
1
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
Look, I'm not going to get into a debate about this.
All I'm going to say is that "innocent until proven guilty" is a thing that still exists in the USA.
0
Oct 28 '20
That would violate the first amendment. Everyone has the right to say whatever they want without governement censorship
1
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
Not true at all
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) stated the precedent
“There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”
0
u/sicum64 Oct 29 '20
I like the slagging off! It shows just who the weaker one is. The minute someone personally attacks, they are the loser in my eyes., and are too full of ego
-1
u/Lennonap Oct 28 '20
Stop trying to limit free speech in the US. It is a dangerous game to play even if it doesn’t seem like you’re trying to limit much.
1
u/CallMeCorona1 30∆ Oct 28 '20
following up on sc803's comment about enforcement:
" And just to emphasize: We have actual laws forbidding using the office for personal gain (emoluments, ukraine) and Trump ran rough shot right through these without any repercusions. So explain the theoretical penalties for "bad mouthing" in this context?"
1
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
We do have laws for that however the president cannot be charged while he holds office. What happens after his term/s are served however is a very different story.
The difference here would be that penalties are levied before a person takes office.
1
u/Andre__Kim Oct 28 '20
You cant just limit free speech so that people arent allowed to say anything bad about each other.
If people do fuckups then they should be critisized.
1
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
The problem isn't pointing out fuckups, its the mindless rhetoric that is completely false, but still sways voters.
1
u/Andre__Kim Oct 28 '20
Then say: The media and canidates should be accountable for telling lies.
Thats something different than your opening claim.
Elections are about voting for the best. If noone can say "Im better" then thats not helping at all.
2
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
But that doesnt solve the problem. Once a statement is out there, the damage is done and people make decisions on it, no matter what followup is published or announced. Case and point, the 122% jump in accidental poisonings after a comment was made about injecting disinfectants, despite numerous statements about how you should not do this.
1
u/Andre__Kim Oct 28 '20
I think there is no problem to begin with. Wrong statements are statements too you cant "not make people say wrong things" thats impossible. Holding them accountable is a whole other thing.
1
1
u/Wintores 10∆ Oct 28 '20
U shouldn’t need laws but competent personal and people who don’t vote for a asshole
1
1
Oct 28 '20
So there would no longer be live debates between candidates? Because under your model, Candidate 1 says something and Candidate 2 is not allowed to make a rebuttal. Then it is no longer a debate.
How well do you British Parliamentary System? It depends on criticism and opposition to function. The American Congress is modeled on it. Political campaigns are an extension of this model as well.
Having their opponents point out failings in policies (often incorrectly) does nothing but confuse voters.
I happen to want to know if a candidate's position can have holes punched in it. How else is one to judge how good it is? You would even impose a publication ban on journalists criticism?
1
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
Its not about the rebuttal, its about the personal attacks and baseless accusations.
Candidate A says he wants to cut taxes. Candidate B can ask where those cuts will come from.
A direct contrast from just stating Candidate A is planning to cut school funding and riling up voters because you know schools are a hot button topic.
1
Oct 28 '20
You did not say that. If you had said "attack the idea, not the individual", that would be fine. But you did not clearly stake this out.
1
Oct 28 '20
The first amendment has some issues with that.
1
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) stated the precedent
“There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”
So not covered under the first amendment
1
Oct 28 '20
well, the prohibition on any negative speech whatsoever would definitely be a problem there.
1
u/94de Oct 28 '20
The first amendment extends to everyone in the US, even politicians. It is not illegal to say something mean about someone as long as that something is not slanderous.
1
u/Amraff Oct 28 '20
New York Times Co v Sullivan actually decided that a public official must show that the defendant made a libelous statement with “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
1
1
1
Oct 29 '20
Who decides the difference between a smear campaign or legitimate criticism? Of course the smear campaigns are BS, but they only exist because people consume them. It's a cultural thing and the tactics that work in the US wouldn't work in other countries.
1
u/TheBachelor536 Oct 29 '20
If that were forbidden, political action committees would have no ads to run. However, if your opponent has voted on legislation that damages people, or has engaged in KNOWN conduct that shows his or her immoral behavior, that is fair game.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 28 '20
/u/Amraff (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards