[pdx]

It seems obvious to me that such a law would have a dramatically chilling effect on public discussion, leading, inevitably, toward a North Korea or Iran type of situation, where you dare not say anything at all. After all, who decides what is a lie, and what is not? Remember that the people who make this determination will almost certainly change in the future.

That this is aimed squarely at "lies" about political elite (people running for political office), is even more troubling.

How can anybody who values freedom at all, think this is a good idea?

[brc]

Kudos for raising the 'chilling effect'. People who agitate for -insane- laws which can be applied to speech (whether lying, name-calling or whatever) have no concept of the chilling effect that laws have on discourse.

A lot of people seem to agitate for the ability to use the power of the state to shut up their enemies or critics, failing to realise that when they silence their enemies, they also silence themselves.

In many cases, the process itself is the punishment. Who wants to go to court, hire lawyers, stress and time to defend themselves against an accusation, even when you are overwhelmingly correct? The far easier choice is to shut it and say nothing. That is the very antithesis of freedom of speech. Even well-known journalists and opinion writers with the legal resources of large media companies have better things to spend their money and time on.

Freedom of speech is the most fundamental of all freedoms. Yes, that means the freedom to lie, the freedom to say nasty things, the freedom to be unpatriotic. Grant the freedom of speech and you can use it to defend all other freedoms.

The best defense against lies is the freedom to stand up and call it as one.

[pixl97]

>Who wants to go to court, hire lawyers, stress and time to defend themselves against an accusation, even when you are overwhelmingly correct?

It's not about who wants to, it is about who can. The wealthy can easily buy their freedom of speech one way or another.

Laws like this are dangerous, not because they make the rich man spend his money, but because they imprison the poor man who has none.

[revscat]

Because lies are detrimental. Ideally, we would be able to outlaw lies in public discourse, and humanity would be better off for it. Practically, of course, it is nigh impossible.

The Bush administration told lies to go to war. If they knew there might be criminal repercussions to such a thing it might have very well saved lives. Hence, in this context it is a good idea.

But again, the practically of the situation makes such laws difficult to craft, to say the least.

[Zigurd]

> If they knew there might be criminal repercussions to such a thing it might have very well saved lives.

A war of aggression is already a crime against humanity, which is a capital crime.

It's really a matter of enforcement. From the "Least untruthful" to the people who unleashed multi-trillion dollar wars on a pack of lies, the laws are there already.

[WildUtah]

a North Korea or Iran type of situation

What would that be? Iran has a semi-independent press, open elections, publishing and popular culture export and import, and industrial work outside government blacklists. North Korea is more like one giant concentration camp than a country in the usual sense. They have little in common.

[einhverfr]

More specifically:

North Korea is an executive dictatorship. Iran, to the extent they are a dictatorship, is a judicial one. One could argue that ancient Athens was a legislative dictatorship. Iran has more in common with classical Greece than they do with North Korea though. And you can see the influence (albeit filtered through Islamic commentaries) of Plato's Republic on the form of government.

[jellicle]

> seems obvious to me that such a law would have a dramatically chilling effect

Why would that seem obvious to you? Are you in the habit of lying about politicians in order to influence elections? Do you believe most people are?

If you believe few people lie in this context, then there's not much chilling effect. And if you believe a lot of people lie in this context, it would seem that the law would be sorely needed.

[MarkPNeyer]

> And if you believe a lot of people lie in this context, it would seem that the law would be sorely needed.

can you explain why a law against lying would stop people from lying? Feel free to use examples such as the wildly successful america experiment with prohibition, or perhaps the ongoing wars on drug and terrorism to prove your point.

[DerpDerpDerp]

I believe politicians will claim that unfavorable facts are lies, placing the burden of proofs and costs of defense on me, even though they're the ones lying.

[Perdition]

How can anybody who values freedom at all think it is a good thing that people can lie about their political opponents without repercussion?

The current system favors entrenched elites who can use their money and media connections to smear opponents.