Just Gimme Some Truth - The Right to Lie?

This is the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. I could show you a different photo and lie to you. Apparently lying has become a component of Free Speech. The recent Court decision which removed the caps on the amount of money donors can give to political candidates and parties; and the anonymity allowed with those donations, in the name of free speech; should give us all pause to think.

The case at hand will now decide whether or not states can make it a crime for political groups to lie about a candidate during an election campaign. And now, with all that new money floating around, you can expect the lies to get even more prevalent. It is hard for me to understand that lies are covered under Free Speech as intended by the Founding Fathers. Those guys fought duels over stuff like this. It was a matter of Honor. Slander and Libel were not readily tolerated in the 18th Century.

Essentially this new case involves an Anti-Abortion group named the Susan B. Anthony List in Ohio. In the 2010 election they attempted to put up a billboard claiming that then-Rep. Steven Driehaus, D-Ohio, supported public funding for abortions under the Affordable Care Act. The ad said, "Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion." There was a technicality involved in the truth of that statement and so the billboard company refused the ad. They claimed that it violated the law in Ohio which makes such lies a crime. The foundation then sued the billboard owner for violating his right to free speech.

When they lost the case the Susan B. Anthony group then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, on the grounds that the Ohio law is unconstitutional. They contend that under the Constitution the government cannot decide what false speech is in a political campaign. That makes no sense. And even more confusing is that if they claim that government doesn't have the sense to decide what false speech in a campaign is, then how can the Susan B. Anthony group expect it to be adjudicated in a court of law run by that same government? If the decision goes against them, will they even respect it? 

Some of the arguments arising out of this case are going to be specious at best, and ridiculous at their worst. Take these arguments in support of lying put forth by the Cato Institute and satirist P.J. O'Rourke, who take the position in their brief, that lies; which they call falsehoods; "are cornerstones of American democracy." They begin with the following 5 quotes from the recent past; the italics are mine.

"I am not a crook." (Richard Nixon) But he was, and knew it at the time he said it. And he resigned in disgrace for lying so much about so many things.

"Read my lips: No new taxes!" (George H.W. Bush)  He did raise taxes, and knew he was going to do it when he said he wasn't. As a result he became a one term President.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." (Bill Clinton) He did; and was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury. Found not guilty of lying on a technicality he cost his party the election in 2000 and became somewhat of a joke.

"Mission accomplished." (George W. Bush) It wasn't, and we are still mired in the events of post 9/11 as they relate to the costly and unnecessary War in Iraq.

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep it." (Barack Obama) What started out as a good and noble program became bogged down in falsities and ineptness; sullying anything good which he might have accomplished in the area of Health Care Reform.

I guess my point is this; if the government is going to sanction lying in political campaigns doesn't that right eventually extend to everybody and everything? Or, is lying only acceptable when it is done by PAC’s with tons of undocumented money to burn? It’s an interesting question, if only for the fact that the High Court would even consider ruling on such a clear cut topic. But nothing surprises me anymore. This is the same court which claims that it is okay to lie; they call it “misrepresent”; about whether or not you earned any medals while in the military. Or,  if you were even in the military to begin with.

I’m a simple man. John Lennon expressed it best when he sang “Just give me some truth!” That doesn't seem like too much to ask for.

Just Gimme Some Truth

(John Lennon)

I'm sick and tired of hearing things

From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics

All I want is the truth

Just gimme some truth

I've had enough of reading things

By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians

All I want is the truth

Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky

Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me

With just a pocketful of hope

Money for dope

Money for rope

I'm sick to death of seeing things

From tight-lipped, condescending, mama's little chauvinists

All I want is the truth

Just gimme some truth now

I've had enough of watching scenes

Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas

All I want is the truth now

Just gimme some truth

D.G. Martin Apologizes for Telling the Truth

I don’t know how popular this guy is outside of North Carolina, and until today I had not heard of him at all. I’m not a big fan of the 24/7 news cycle and it appears that Mr. Martin works in that field, so he has never crossed my radar screen until now.

It seems that Mr. Martin hosts a TV show called “Bookwatch”, on which he interviews authors in depth, and apparently to much acclaim. I’ll have to start watching him, as we seem to share a love of books; and literature in general. So, what’s the deal with Mr. Martin apologizing to the North Carolina Grand Old Party, which is currently having a grand old time rolling the state back about 100 years socially and economically?

Apparently, Mr. Martin, quoted Joseph Goebbels from a recently released book called “In the Garden of Beasts” by Erik Larsont, in which Goebbels says “Now our party is in charge and they are free again. When a man has been in jail for 12 years and is suddenly freed, in his joy he may do something irrational, perhaps even brutal.” After reciting the quote Mr. Martin added these words of his own; “In our state, too?” And now you would think that the sky has fallen as the republicans demand a retraction, an apology, and even Mr. Martin’s removal from the TV show he hosts, which is funded in part by the state.

Okay, let’s examine two things here; first, what he said. The quote is applicable, in my opinion, to the actions of the recently installed GOP Governorship of the state of North Carolina, in which I live. After not having a Republican in power for 100 years, it would seem to many; and if you have been aware of the “Moral Monday” demonstrations recently, in which teachers and Nuns have been arrested; that the GOP in North Carolina is acting exactly as Herr Goebbels describes.

As soon as the Republicans took over last January they began a flood of bills all aimed at either rolling back the social progress of the last 50 years, or passed legislation which will have a crippling effect upon the middle classes. Along with these measures, they have found time to declare war on women’s health choices, attempting to gut access to abortions. And, in their spare time they have even tried to establish an official State Religion. Some; as Goebbels did; might describe these actions as being “irrational, perhaps even brutal.” That’s my opinion.

Secondly; these self-anointed monitors of the airwaves are quick to point out that Mr. Martin overstepped his mandate by delving into politics when he made the comparison, thus venturing an opinion with which they do not agree. Good point, save for one thing. If you allow that thinking to prevail, and Mr. Martin is removed from his post, then the NCGOP has now made their opinion; for that is what it is; the prevalent one, thus depriving the people who might agree with Mr. Martin in the first place, of their own rights. This creates a vicious circle, in which no one is ever satisfied.

J. Edgar Hoover; not one of my favorite people to quote from; once inadvertently said something very astute. In his book “Masters of Deceit” from 1958 (Henry Holt) Hoover states that once everyone has their rights to the fullest extent, then everyone’s rights will be diminished in proportion. And he was right. It was probably an accident of thinking on his part, but he was right. Think about it; if I am so concerned with offending you, then I must carefully choose my words. That’s what keeps America from ever having a real “conversation” about race. Too many words we can’t use to discuss the problem we have.

Well, the same holds true here with D.G. Martin and the NCGOP. With both sides unwilling to listen, or even tolerate the other's point of view, if they both exercise their rights to the max, then the silence will become, as they say, deafening.

"Out of Order" by Sandra Day O'Connor (2013)

The most remarkable thing about this book is that it has never been written before; but then again, we never had a Supreme Court Justice like Sandra O’Connor before either. An accomplished author, the Honorable Justice has taken all of the tales about the Supreme Court; its history, it’s members, it’s legends and tall tales; and place them all in one book.

With the same style and dry sense of humor which marked her previous memoirs, the Justice has written an account of the daily workings of the Supreme Court in the 21^st Century, and how those changes reflect the changes of our constantly changing nation. The Court is really kind of a mirror of whom we are, and if we don’t like what we see, then we have to make the changes ourselves.

History buffs will enjoy all of the minutiae in the book, as well as some funny stories about the Justices themselves; both living and deceased. Some were liked by their colleagues, some were loathed. The important thing being portrayed here is that the Justices are just people, entrusted with the care of the Law in our nation, and as outlined in the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

Exploring the appointments of the various Presidents lends a unique insight into history. There have been only 3 Presidents who never made an appointment to the Court. There have also been issues which the Court has come head to head with the Executive branch in their attempt to interpret the meaning of the law under our Constitution.

Sometimes they have gotten it wrong, as in Plessy v Ferguson, the so-called “separate but equal” ruling in the late 19^th Century. That mistake stood for 50 years, or more, but the point is that it was corrected. We live in an elastic nation, and Justice O’Connor has written a book that does our Court system, and the people who have set on the bench, a great service in making them appear more “human” than they have been portrayed before. This was a very quick and enjoyable read.