truthfully?

I once caught a fish THIIIIIIS big.

There was an earlier case that also challenged the PDC law (another section of which I'm relying on to pry out state documents involving the embezzlement of $20,000 in student fees and the suspension of the Good Professor Mills) in regards to false political claims. Note that the decision was in the appeals court, but hasn't made it up to the state supreme court yet. It will certainly be appealed.

The solution is for the League of Women Voters to put up an initiative to straighten out this mess. The Public Disclosure Act (RCW 42.17) was passed by initiatiative back in the Watergate era. Every year since then, the legislature has ammended it to water it down, add exemptions and generally screw it up. The League is slow to move on these sorts of things because they are very deliberate in their actions. But when they do get their teeth into somebody's ankle, they NEVER let go.

Lying is free speech. You can however be sued for it. I would not want the government to set the standards for lying, and thus whether I can be prosecuted for what I say.

the whole point of free speech is that it lets you say things that others pobject to. whether it's lying or hate or defamation or whatever.

think about it for a moment - what would be the point of free speech if it was only for saying things people thought good and proper? you don't need a right for that.

"but", you cry, all indignant with the idea that someone can say whatever they feel like, "can't we have some limits?"

think about it again. who are you going to have choosing those limits? your government? the judges appointed by your government? if you follow american news you must surely understand that is hardly an morally neutral basis...

so we're left with being able to say anything. rather like democracy, it's not perfect. it's just better than any other solution.

The "1st Amendment fundamentalist" (the Washington ACLU uses this term to describe it's majority -- but not consensus -- position) is easy, but lazy. To understand what this case is about, you really need to read the law passed by the people (over the heavy opposition of the legislature).

The Public Disclosure Act was the only "sunshine" law protecting the electoral process. The section which is in dispute (appeals to the state Supremes are underway, so it ain't over) provided the ONLY remedy under state law for election tampering by libel, defamation and intentional misinformation. Its purpose was to provide a means of addressing crooked elections. It was never a case of prior restraint (even the people attacking the law admit this), nor does it do anything other than say if you throw an election by intentionally misleading the voters, the voters can get the election overturned and a new one held. It was attacked because it also had a provision establishing fines and penalties for this manner of election tampering. The ability to overturn crooked elections was killed as a correlary; the lawsuit was over the fines and the defense allowed/encouraged the entire section to be struck down.

There is no constituancy for honest elections. The state Attorney General (now Governor) took a dive on defending the law. Everybody in elected office wants it to go away, because removing it guarantees a permanent incumbency.

Celebrating the victory of the corrupt establishment over the efforts of the voters to protect the integrity of the elections process is not a victory for free speech. It is the beginning of the end of free speech.