EDITORIAL: When politicians seek court-ordered censorship

Voters might be shocked to hear this, but politicians and candidates for office lie. A lot. It’s the electorate’s job to sort facts from fibs before casting a ballot.

But something very unusual — and very wrong — happened in the run-up to last week’s primary election. A candidate asked the government to be the arbiter of truth amid a hard-fought campaign, and a judge obliged.

State Sen. Ben Kieckhefer, R-Reno, faced a primary challenge from Gary Schmidt. Mr. Schmidt’s campaign put together a TV ad that accused Sen. Kieckhefer of supporting the re-election of U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., in 2010. There’s no evidence to support that charge.

The remedy, of course, was for Sen. Kieckhefer to climb atop a soapbox and call Mr. Schmidt a liar, then put out his own ads rebutting the charge. Instead, the former journalist filed a defamation lawsuit and obtained an order from Washoe County District Judge Patrick Flanagan to pull the ad.

Sen. Kieckhefer easily won Tuesday’s primary election, which probably means the end of the case. But it’s doubtful he could have won any damages in the lawsuit even if he had lost. Under Nevada law, losing an election is not grounds for defamation damages — it’s too speculative, because voters base their decisions on a wide range of factors.

The First Amendment exists to ensure the free flow of ideas, especially in political campaigns. Voters do not need a court censor to help them make judgments about candidates. They’re smart enough to sort substance from equine manure.

Judge Flanagan should have rejected Sen. Kieckhefer’s request. Instead, he effectively has invited every candidate in Nevada with sufficient resources to drag opponents into court and demand that attack ads be halted.

This decision was unconstitutional. It must not be repeated.