Political free speech: Same nail, different hammer

An alert reader from Ohio read the blog posting about Nevada’s judicial ethics panel censuring a judge candidate for what she said about her opponent on a television show, and told me about a contretemps there.

A congressman seeking re-election threatened to charge the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List with what amounts to criminal libel if it carried out plans to post billboard messages accusing him of voting for government-funded abortions by voting for ObamaCare. The truth of that claim may or may not be in dispute.

But the threat managed to scare off the billboard company. The ACLU joined the fray and took the matter to federal court on First Amendment grounds. The effort failed because the judge said the state had not actually barred the billboards yet. No, the threat merely chilled the debate by scaring off the private business that would have posted the signs.

The ACLU said on its website that the “Ohio law unconstitutionally restricts the group’s First Amendment rights to criticize elected officials. The law prohibits groups from publishing ‘false’ ads, but allows the government to determine whether the speech is false.

“ACLU of Ohio Legal Director James Hardiman said, ‘The right to dissent is foundational to our democracy. By allowing the government to be the final arbitrator of what speech is acceptable, we open the door for those who are critical of elected officials to be silenced.

“ ‘Speech is rarely black and white — oftentimes whether a statement is true or false may be a matter of opinion,’ Hardiman added. ‘If the government silences one side of the debate, the public is less informed and others may be fearful of criticizing elected officials. The answer to unpopular speech is not less, but more speech.’”

The gentleman who alerted me to the Ohio case asked if it might not be similar to what happened in Nevada. I replied, “Same nail, different hammer.”

The Ohio Elections Commission was to hear the billboard case on Thursday but made no decision, effectively gagging the anti-abortion group by its inaction.

Here a federal judge tossed the candidate's censure. The difference might be that the action had already taken place.

Government has no role in determining who may say what about those who stand for election. If someone wants to sue for libel, that is the route to take, not criminal action or official government sanctions and censures.