Apparently, my right to make up stuff like that might just be protected under the law, because we are retarded:

OLYMPIA — A state law prohibiting political candidates from lying about their opponents is an unconstitutional violation of free speech and chills political discourse, a state appeals court ruled yesterday.

The decision from the Court of Appeals Division II stems from a 2002 legislative race and puts in jeopardy one of the state’s remaining truth-in-campaigning laws.

The court, in an opinion by Judge C.C. Bridgewater, said the law is unconstitutional because it punishes false political claims whether or not they damaged a candidate — a legal standard for slander or libel claims.

The court also said that because the law allows candidates to “proclaim falsehoods about themselves” the state cannot argue that the law meets its interest “in promoting integrity and honesty in the elections process.”

Essentially, as far as I can tell, this means I can say just about anything I want, and as long as my falsehoods aren’t actually intended to “hurt” my opponent, then I’m protected. I wonder, and I’m just thinking aloud here, but I wonder if rich people with the money to hire shark-lawyers might have a much easier time “disproving” actual harm than their accuser would have proving that harm was done. I also wonder if this might prove valuable for advertisers who want to lie about their wares. Naaah, couldn’t be. We have the fairest justice system on earth.

The case began in a state Senate race in the 35th Legislative District. Marilou Rickert, a Green Party candidate in the Southwest Washington district, challenged the longtime incumbent, Democrat Tim Sheldon.

In the campaign Rickert sent voters a brochure claiming that Sheldon “voted to close a facility for the developmentally challenged.”

After the election, which he won easily, Sheldon filed a complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission saying Rickert’s campaign flier was false.

A PDC investigation determined that Sheldon had not voted for closing the institution and that the facility she referred to was not for the developmentally disabled. The PDC found that Rickert acted with “actual malice or reckless disregard” for the truth because she did not attempt even a cursory check of the facts.

Sounds reasonable to me. Honestly, regardless of your goals you should not be allowed to just make things up. Especially if you claim to represent the left. That’s why god invented Republicans and ad agencies. But I digress. What’s most terrifying here is that the definition of free speech is dangerously reconfigured to render content and meaning irrelevant:

While the Court of Appeals did not address all Rickert’s claims, it did rule that the truth-in-campaigning law is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.

The Supreme Court said then, “In this field every person must be his own watchman for truth, because the forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us.”

What the heck is this guy talking about? Can anyone explain it to me? It’s not like this case is about metaphysics or freshman year philosophy, we’re talking empiracle facts, the sorts of things that in a sane world would not be up for debate. This isn’t a conflict between opinions, it’s between fact and fiction, and despite what this judge and (sadly) the ACLU thinks, there is a difference between the two that can and should be protected under the law.

Perhaps I’m very wong in my interpretation of this, but it seems to me that this kind of weird reasoning is the same nonsense that makes it possible for people to treat, say, intelligent design like it’s not just another crackpot theory, thought up by people who can’t stand science and overtly long for theocracy. Though I admit that’s a digression from the main point.

Rickert said the appeals court delivered a clear message: “The government doesn’t have any right to tell political candidates what they can and cannot say.”

Oh come on, that’s false equivalency, right? This isn’t about defending the right of the government to proscribe political speech, it’s about preventing people from using a lie to win. The government can’t tell me I’m not allowed to say George Bush is the worst president ever”, followed by dozens of examples of his ineptitude. It is allowed, on the other hand, to keep me from claiming that George Bush is a member of the communist* party in order to convince right wingers to vote against him.

She said existing defamation laws will suffice to protect people against false claims that damage reputations.

That sounds a lot like the Republicans’ favorite argument against regulating anything they get money from: “if existing laws were enforced blah blah blah”. Of course that argument is bullshit, Republicans are against the enforcement of “existing laws” too, at least when they apply to donors who benefit them. Which means the neccesity of more specific legal parameters will grow.

My understanding is that defamation laws require a much higher standard before they’re applicable. The lie told here didn’t actually defame anyone, it just wildly misrepresented them. Which isn’t exactly the same thing. How are we supposed to combat that otherwise, the honor system? Just because someone might be a better candidate, it doesn’t give them the right to lie.

The ACLU, which helped represent Rickert in the case, agreed.

“American democracy thrives, in part, because people running for office can say very strong things critical of their opponent or critical of the government and the government itself shouldn’t be sorting out what is true and false,” said spokesman Doug Honig.

Well, as I said before, this is a false depiction of what’s happening. What happened wasn’t a limitation on freedom of speech. And “true” and “false” aren’t mutable, vague concepts, at least in this case. It’s one thing for the candidate to claim that their opponent favors or doesn’t favor something, but to claim they did something they clearly didn’t do shouldn’t be protected. That sort of reasoning blurs the lines of perception so greatly as to render debate meaningless. It’s the sort of thing the republicans have perfected and I’m disturbed that the green party candidate in question is comfortable with it.

I wouldn’t even ben bothering to comment if Rickert’s defense had been “Sorry, I was mistaken. I thought I was stating a fact, not intentionally lying”. At least then we’d be debating intent. Then again, perhaps I’m wrong about this. Is there anyone who might offer a more thorough interpreation of this?

*Not that there’s anything wrong with that, since the modern republican party does seem very eerily influenced by the Soviets.