[g-b-r]

Your issue seems to be with enforcing any rule or law on politicians, rather than with my sketch of proposal.

If you instead only think that politicians should be subject to different judicial procedures than normal people, that's something we might agree; I don't see additional problems with including lying to the public to the crimes addressed through them.

Such procedures are actually often flawed, so the effectiveness of the rule might be diminished, but I don't see it as increasing the risk of political prosecution.

It's just a further crime, and you would need a reasonable threshold to initiate investigations or indictments, so, yes, I don't see big risks about it.

I do see how democracy has a very hard time instead when its voters are drown in lies.

[HideousKojima]

Let me make this as simple for you as I can. Are the following statements truthful statements or lies (or something else entirely)?

Trans women are real women.

Climate change isn't real.

White people are more likely to commit violent crime than black people.

Black people are more likely to commit violent crime than white people.

Black people and white people are equally likely to commit violent crimes.

Men are more likely to commit violent crimes than women.

Fermented grapes drinks aren't champagne unless they come from the Champagne region of France.

Air-cured meat products aren't Biltong unless they were made in South Africa.

Chinese corporations steal IP from Western corporations on a massive scale.

Chinese corporations don't steal IP from anyone.

And so on and so on. If telling lies is now a crime (whether for everyone or just for politicians is largely irrelevant here) then who gets to determine which of the statements above are truth or lies or neither? Who gets to determine whether to prosecute or not? What standards of proof will be required for the judge, jury, etc.?

And most important of all, what protections are in place to keep entryists from taking control of the institutions that make these decisions, now that you've given them a galaxy-sized incentive to do so as a way to control and attack their political enemies?

[g-b-r]

Those statements are lies if there is, or at a certain point surfaces, enough evidence that the person uttering them was not expressing an opinion but intentionally lying.

If there isn't enough evidence nothing happens (not even investigations).

And the person determining whether to prosecute, the standards of proof etc. are the same as those for any other crime to which politicians can be subjected.

The risks of people "taking control of the institutions" are just the same as with the other crimes applicable to politicians; again you seem to be arguing for general immunity for politicians more than against this specific proposal

[HideousKojima]

Well then there's no nicer way to put this, you're utterly naive about how political and legal systems work the whole world over. I'm not arguing for immunity for politicians, if I had my way all politicians would be launched into the sun (though they'd be quickly replaced by yet more politicians).

I'm arguing that a law like you're proposing will inevitably be enforced unequally, be enforced against people who spoke unpopular truths that powerful people claimed were legally lies, and will be used by powerful interests to suppress their enemies. This isn't pessimism, this is a "this has happened anytime this or anything similar to it has been tried" and anyone with the most basic understanding of human nature could see that.

[g-b-r]

I'm not sure if you understand the difference between saying something false and lying.

Do you have some example where "this or anything similar to it has been tried" ?

In countries with poor institutions anyhow, powerful people don't need this law to suppress their enemies, any existing law applicable to politicians can be used!

If I'm utterly naive with no understanding of human nature though we could just stop it here.