http://www.komotv.com/news/local/10234451.html

This is a tough one. If lies are protected free speech, then I'd like to see the bar lowered for someone to sue for slander. Then it's an even playing field.

I agree with the principle behind the court's decision. During a political campaign, the public, not the courts, are the best judges of what the "truth" is.

This is indeed the essence of free speech. Sloppy,messy, nasty, and yes, sometimes unbelievable.

In politics, there are so many fine line stements, such as Clintons "It depends on the meaning of the".

A couple of extremes, some people claim President Bush avoided the draft, although he met every technical qualification for completing service. And kerry, technically didn't complete his service. So if you went by the law, no lies, yo could claim Kerry was a draft evader and not get a complaint. But since Bush technically completed all of his requirements, you couldnt make that claim against him.

Just let the voters sort it all out.

I think freedom of speech comes with responsibility, and if a candidate is willfully lying about another, I think the liar should be exposed to a lawsuit.

Who gets to determine if its a lie.

The court.

Whats wrong with letting the people decide, why are so many liberals/demos afraid of the people!

I don't see this as a liberal/conservative issue. If your opponent is spreading outright lies about you via TV commercials in order to win an election, don't you believe that they should be held accountable? Is this how people should be elected, on lies? Spin is one thing, outright lies is another.

"Whats wrong with letting the people decide, why are so many liberals/demos afraid of the people!"

I'm not afraid of the people. But I like the swiftness that a court provides. As opposed to having to wade through half-truths to get to the bottom of a statement - only to have it NEVER made clear - all the while, some liar is installed and we have to wait 2 or 4 years or so get another chance to rectify whatever perceived justice we deem needed.

So there is nothing wrong with letting the people decide. And the very fact that you are citing a court ruling is a great example of why courts hold, express and serve the people in a manner that a general election cannot.

What's wrong with letting the courts decide? Nothing. We can have both.

Swiftness of the courts?

Well, as opposed to having to wait until another election to determine a sentence of some kind. Or even what the actual truth is.

"Whats wrong with letting the people decide, why are so many liberals/demos afraid of the people!"

Not to resurrect an old argument, but why did Bush not allow the people of Florida to do a recount in 2000, instead of taking it to the courts? Answer: he did not trust that the will of the people - which he believed was that they wanted him to be president - would not be accurately represented in a recount. So there are two factors here: what is the will of the people, and is the will of the people being accurately expressed?

Alexander Hamilton also went another step, by saying that the will of the people is too easily manipulable, and more a reflection of coercion by strong-willed leaders and peer pressure/public opinion. Not that the average citizen is stupid, but that they tend to vote popularity more than their core values.

And our system of government is designed around this belief, with court systems that protect the rights of the minority (or individual) over the tyranny of the majority; and the electoral college, which places the choice for president in the hands of electors rather than the general population. Particularly with the electoral college, the framers knew that if it were a general election of the people, it would devolve into a popularity contest. More learned people - a college of electors from the states - should therefore pick the president.

(I'm just saying how it currently is set up, not that it doesn't maybe need some updating...)

Because the demo's were trying to change the rules in mid stream, President Bush would have been happy with a statewide recount, which the demos didn't want. ANd by the way why did the demos try to throw out so many military votes?

Both sides screwed up that one. Gore was wrong to target only certain counties (he would have won had a full statewide count been conducted (yes, many have studied it and the results are solid for a Gore win had the statewide happened.) But don't lie and say that Bush would have been happy with a full state recount - he was 573 ahead with Harris' numbers and that was good enough for him.