CDZ Why is lying on the campaign trail legal?

[320 Years of History]

As the title suggests. Why is lying on the campaign trail legal? I understand that in certain situations the things said fall into a grey area but at times there are obvious falsehoods.

To make it ‘illegal’ would violate the First Amendment.

I suppose strictly speaking it would. That said, I doubt the founders ever intended the 1st Amendment as a sanction for mendacity.

 

[Anathema]

As the title suggests. Why is lying on the campaign trail legal? I understand that in certain situations the things said fall into a grey area but at times there are obvious falsehoods.

Why is lying legal by anyone, anywhere.

If/When we Conservatives retake this nation and correct the mistakes of the Founders, one thing that needs to be changed is..... the Right to Free Speech will be corrected to the Right to True Speech.

 

[Pilate]

As the title suggests. Why is lying on the campaign trail legal? I understand that in certain situations the things said fall into a grey area but at times there are obvious falsehoods.

Most politicians can't help it.

Most would never be elected if they told the truth

It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one.
― George Washington​

Red:
Most voters can't tell anyway what is true and what is not so with regard to the complex issues, most especially economic ones, discussed during a political campaign. Legal matters are another area where folks don't really know much. Those are just two examples, and we have seen them played out in the current election cycle.

• Economics: Consider the discussion about free trade. Take the time to get a full understanding of the economics of trade and then apply that understanding to the currently popular rhetoric about trade and trade agreements. What you'll find if you look closely enough (as close as a high school student must in order to prepare for an exam having the questions one would find here) is that neither major candidate favors trade policy that has a damn thing to do with what free trade is about. The candidates are framing free trade issues as though they are about jobs.
  
  Free trade isn't about jobs, it's about goods/services prices; free trade's impact on jobs is just a "follow on" effect, but that effect is entirely controllable/mitigated for by individual workers. In a nation like the U.S., free trade eliminates low-skill jobs and creates high-skill ones, which pay better to boot...the loss of the low-skill jobs being the downside. And what do workers need to mitigate the so-called "downside" of free trade? Nothing more than a high schooler's understanding of economics and then act to increase their skills so they can obtain the high skill jobs that get created.
• Legal: I was surprised when Director Comey announced that criminal charges would not be recommended for Hillary Clinton. He gave his press conference in which he explained why. I didn't know a damn thing about the concept he identified for why: mens rea. I bothered to find out about it -- mainly because I just wanted to understand what he was talking about -- and after having done that, it was clear why charges weren't recommended.
  
  I don't have to like that they didn't bring charges. I don't have to agree that mens rea belongs as a applied concept in U.S. jurisprudence. But at least I now have better sense than to spout off like a damned fool by saying that charges should have been brought. How much effort did I spend in order to understand mens rea? About an hour's worth of reading.

Candidates know this and they avail themselves of the electorate's general dearth of foundational awareness of "how things work" and "what's what" in the world in which we live. Now one can be ticked off at the pols for doing that, but truly, the only person the electorate has to blame for pols being able to do that successfully is each and every individual in the electorate who hasn't honed their understanding to the point that pols could not.

A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.
― William Blake, Auguries of Innocence​

But this doesn't justify lying. It's basically saying that a faulty electorate makes lying okay.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why is lying on the campaign trail legal?

Because while campaigning nobody is under oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

And why should they not be? I can think of no situation in which a candidate would be justified in lying to his or her constituents.

Again, because to subject politicians to government-sanctioned punitive measures for lying, such as fines or prison, would violate the First Amendment.

The punishment for a politician who lies is to not be elected to office; and for office-holders who lie, their punishment will be that they are voted out of office.

Our free and democratic society affords the people the right to decide who is or isn’t fit to hold public office, absent unwarranted interference from the courts.

 

[320 Years of History]

As the title suggests. Why is lying on the campaign trail legal? I understand that in certain situations the things said fall into a grey area but at times there are obvious falsehoods.

Most politicians can't help it.

Most would never be elected if they told the truth

It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one.
― George Washington​

Red:
Most voters can't tell anyway what is true and what is not so with regard to the complex issues, most especially economic ones, discussed during a political campaign. Legal matters are another area where folks don't really know much. Those are just two examples, and we have seen them played out in the current election cycle.

• Economics: Consider the discussion about free trade. Take the time to get a full understanding of the economics of trade and then apply that understanding to the currently popular rhetoric about trade and trade agreements. What you'll find if you look closely enough (as close as a high school student must in order to prepare for an exam having the questions one would find here) is that neither major candidate favors trade policy that has a damn thing to do with what free trade is about. The candidates are framing free trade issues as though they are about jobs.
  
  Free trade isn't about jobs, it's about goods/services prices; free trade's impact on jobs is just a "follow on" effect, but that effect is entirely controllable/mitigated for by individual workers. In a nation like the U.S., free trade eliminates low-skill jobs and creates high-skill ones, which pay better to boot...the loss of the low-skill jobs being the downside. And what do workers need to mitigate the so-called "downside" of free trade? Nothing more than a high schooler's understanding of economics and then act to increase their skills so they can obtain the high skill jobs that get created.
• Legal: I was surprised when Director Comey announced that criminal charges would not be recommended for Hillary Clinton. He gave his press conference in which he explained why. I didn't know a damn thing about the concept he identified for why: mens rea. I bothered to find out about it -- mainly because I just wanted to understand what he was talking about -- and after having done that, it was clear why charges weren't recommended.
  
  I don't have to like that they didn't bring charges. I don't have to agree that mens rea belongs as a applied concept in U.S. jurisprudence. But at least I now have better sense than to spout off like a damned fool by saying that charges should have been brought. How much effort did I spend in order to understand mens rea? About an hour's worth of reading.

Candidates know this and they avail themselves of the electorate's general dearth of foundational awareness of "how things work" and "what's what" in the world in which we live. Now one can be ticked off at the pols for doing that, but truly, the only person the electorate has to blame for pols being able to do that successfully is each and every individual in the electorate who hasn't honed their understanding to the point that pols could not.

A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.
― William Blake, Auguries of Innocence​

But this doesn't justify lying. It's basically saying that a faulty electorate makes lying okay.

Red:
Neither the connotation nor denotation of anything I wrote says what you have interpreted it to mean; however, you're free to think that it does. That's on you.

 

[320 Years of History]

The punishment for a politician who lies is to not be elected to office; and for office-holders who lie, their punishment will be that they are voted out of office.

That's clearly a penalty that doesn't often get levied.

 

[presonorek]

As the title suggests. Why is lying on the campaign trail legal? I understand that in certain situations the things said fall into a grey area but at times there are obvious falsehoods.

To make it ‘illegal’ would violate the First Amendment.

Religion would be a dead duck if you had to tell the truth all the time.

 

[Pilate]

As the title suggests. Why is lying on the campaign trail legal? I understand that in certain situations the things said fall into a grey area but at times there are obvious falsehoods.

To make it ‘illegal’ would violate the First Amendment.

Religion would be a dead duck if you had to tell the truth all the time.

There's a separation of church and state, additionally what I'm proposing would be applicable to political candidates and not preachers preaching within their own churches.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As the title suggests. Why is lying on the campaign trail legal? I understand that in certain situations the things said fall into a grey area but at times there are obvious falsehoods.

To make it ‘illegal’ would violate the First Amendment.

I suppose strictly speaking it would. That said, I doubt the founders ever intended the 1st Amendment as a sanction for mendacity.

It would in fact be un-Constitutional.

And it was the intent of the Framers that the First Amendment protect all manner of speech from unwarranted government restriction, regardless the merit of that speech.

Again, it was the understanding of the Founding Generation that all speech be subject to Constitutional protections, speech made in good or bad faith, which is not for government to decide; where the people alone would decide the value and merit of that speech, and act accordingly, including the speech of politicians and elected officials.

 

[Pilate]

As the title suggests. Why is lying on the campaign trail legal? I understand that in certain situations the things said fall into a grey area but at times there are obvious falsehoods.

To make it ‘illegal’ would violate the First Amendment.

I suppose strictly speaking it would. That said, I doubt the founders ever intended the 1st Amendment as a sanction for mendacity.

It would in fact be un-Constitutional.

And it was the intent of the Framers that the First Amendment protect all manner of speech from unwarranted government restriction, regardless the merit of that speech.

Again, it was the understanding of the Founding Generation that all speech be subject to Constitutional protections, speech made in good or bad faith, which is not for government to decide; where the people alone would decide the value and merit of that speech, and act accordingly, including the speech of politicians and elected officials.

But then how would you explain the illegality of slander, libel, fighting words, and words that create an immediate and tangible danger?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The punishment for a politician who lies is to not be elected to office; and for office-holders who lie, their punishment will be that they are voted out of office.

That's clearly a penalty that doesn't often get levied.

And appropriately so – as for government to do so would be un-Constitutional, a violation of the First Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is understood that there is a great frustration among some voters with regard to what they perceive to be politicians and office-holders who are ‘dishonest’ and ‘liars’ – but violating the right to free speech and the First Amendment is not a ‘remedy’ for that perceived dishonesty.

If an office-holder should lie under oath during a deposition, or seek to obstruct justice during an official investigation of alleged wrongdoing, then he should indeed be subject to prosecution and punishment should he be found guilty of obstructing justice – but lying during a stump speech about your opponent’s position on a given issue does not warrant official state punishment, regardless how reprehensible.

 

[320 Years of History]

It is understood that there is a great frustration among some voters with regard to what they perceive to be politicians and office-holders who are ‘dishonest’ and ‘liars’ – but violating the right to free speech and the First Amendment is not a ‘remedy’ for that perceived dishonesty.

Agree.

The remedy is for audience members to religiously "trust, but verify." That, of course, requires effort, something folk seem disinclined to invest for the sake of being able to tell when they're being "put on the program" by politicians.

 

[JoeMoma]

As the title suggests. Why is lying on the campaign trail legal? I understand that in certain situations the things said fall into a grey area but at times there are obvious falsehoods.

Free speech.
Besides, without lies, the Right wing would have nothing.

Ya know it's funny I actually did believe obama in 2008 with "hope and change" a "transparent government " I thought him being a black guy, a outsider, he would have been different .


But that dude was the worse of the worse in his lies, with white people I wouldn't have felt let down as I did with obama.


.

You feel more let down by Obama because he is black! That's racist!

 

[JoeMoma]

There is much disagreement about what is true and what is not. And often times those disagreements are what elections about. That being said, polls are not the best way to determine the truth.

 

[Wyatt earp]

As the title suggests. Why is lying on the campaign trail legal? I understand that in certain situations the things said fall into a grey area but at times there are obvious falsehoods.

Free speech.
Besides, without lies, the Right wing would have nothing.

Ya know it's funny I actually did believe obama in 2008 with "hope and change" a "transparent government " I thought him being a black guy, a outsider, he would have been different .


But that dude was the worse of the worse in his lies, with white people I wouldn't have felt let down as I did with obama.


.

You feel more let down by Obama because he is black! That's racist!

How os thai racist? How many black presidents did we have? He should have known better.

 

[320 Years of History]

As the title suggests. Why is lying on the campaign trail legal? I understand that in certain situations the things said fall into a grey area but at times there are obvious falsehoods.

Free speech.
Besides, without lies, the Right wing would have nothing.

Ya know it's funny I actually did believe obama in 2008 with "hope and change" a "transparent government " I thought him being a black guy, a outsider, he would have been different .


But that dude was the worse of the worse in his lies, with white people I wouldn't have felt let down as I did with obama.


.

You feel more let down by Obama because he is black! That's racist!

How [is] thai racist? How many black presidents did we have? He should have known better.

Red:
Truly, if you cannot see how that's racist, there is no point in anyone wasting their time to explain it to you.

 

[JoeMoma]

As the title suggests. Why is lying on the campaign trail legal? I understand that in certain situations the things said fall into a grey area but at times there are obvious falsehoods.

Free speech.
Besides, without lies, the Right wing would have nothing.

Ya know it's funny I actually did believe obama in 2008 with "hope and change" a "transparent government " I thought him being a black guy, a outsider, he would have been different .


But that dude was the worse of the worse in his lies, with white people I wouldn't have felt let down as I did with obama.


.

You feel more let down by Obama because he is black! That's racist!

I intended my statement to be humorous. That being said, most humorous statements need an element of truth to be funny. I can understand that you felt more let down by Obama because you had higher expectations for him as the first black president.

 

[GaryDog]

As the title suggests. Why is lying on the campaign trail legal? I understand that in certain situations the things said fall into a grey area but at times there are obvious falsehoods.

Free speech.
Besides, without lies, the Right wing would have nothing.

Ya know it's funny I actually did believe obama in 2008 with "hope and change" a "transparent government " I thought him being a black guy, a outsider, he would have been different .


But that dude was the worse of the worse in his lies, with white people I wouldn't have felt let down as I did with obama.


.

You feel more let down by Obama because he is black! That's racist!

I intended my statement to be humorous. That being said, most humorous statements need an element of truth to be funny. I can understand that you felt more let down by Obama because you had higher expectations for him as the first black president.

That's not why people had high expectations for him.

 

[JoeMoma]

As the title suggests. Why is lying on the campaign trail legal? I understand that in certain situations the things said fall into a grey area but at times there are obvious falsehoods.

Free speech.
Besides, without lies, the Right wing would have nothing.

Ya know it's funny I actually did believe obama in 2008 with "hope and change" a "transparent government " I thought him being a black guy, a outsider, he would have been different .


But that dude was the worse of the worse in his lies, with white people I wouldn't have felt let down as I did with obama.


.

You feel more let down by Obama because he is black! That's racist!

I intended my statement to be humorous. That being said, most humorous statements need an element of truth to be funny. I can understand that you felt more let down by Obama because you had higher expectations for him as the first black president.

That's not why people had high expectations for him.

Apparently bear513 did because he was black (and an outsider).
Hope and Change -- Hope and Change!