Where does freedom of speech stop and democracy start?

[Soph0571]

Should freedom of speech include flat out lies? And if it does then how can that support a democratic process? The entirety of the Trump campaign was based on a series of bigger and bigger lies to get the campaign to a ‘win’, and while one expects exaggeration and half-truths from politicians, should not everything over and above this be challenged for undermining the democratic process? In 2010 a politician in the UK got severely spanked and barred from sitting as an MP because of his flagrant disregard of our electoral rules on lying to voters. As part of his campaign for re-election he more than implied that his nearest opponent was pro-Islamist. He scraped a win by the nearest of margins by hooking into the ‘angry white man vote’. It was not worth it – the fall from grace was profound. Although many commenting on the case thought that all is fair in political electioneering the High Court disagreed and in part said:

Among them were two High Court judges: Mr Justice Griffith Williams and Mr Justice Teare. Delivering a historic ruling in the Saddleworth Civic Hall, they found Woolas “guilty of an illegal practice,” for contravening section 106 of the RPA. “To say that a person has sought the electoral support of persons who advocate extreme violence, clearly attacks his personal character or conduct,” they said. “It suggests that he is willing to condone threats of violence in pursuit of personal advantage.”
The consequences, the judges made immediately clear, were serious. “Allegations of an illegal practice in elections,” they wrote in their full judgement, “have what are in effect penal consequences.” As such, the May election Woolas won by 103 votes was declared void, and he was barred from the House of Commons and any elective office for three years.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/ryan-gallagher/woolas-judgement-lying-about-other-candidates-banned-in-uk-elections

We all know that politicians lie all the time. They lie about their positions, the economy, the climate, how often they fart, ad infinitum. They tell us what we want to hear to get us to vote for them, it has ever been thus. But there is a difference between lying about their policy position and lying about the person standing against them. Freedom of speech should not give a politician the right to make up any old crap, any old time as a way to secure victory. Surely that flies in the face of democracy? Misrepresenting your position may well get you elected. Maliciously misrepresenting your opposition should get your fired. Lying to win surely undermines democracy? Freedom of speech should not mean the freedom to undermine the democratic process. The poison of Faux News anyone?

[c-rational]

1. Good point. It should be against the law to use public airwaves to spread lies.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

2. Yes, freedom of speech should include lies.

What is it with all of the authoritarian and unconstitutional stances here lately? Slippery fucking slope.

[NotASurfer]

3. Even the stupid can vote

Some politicians tap into that electorate either honestly, or by cynical design

That's a challenge any republic or democracy faces, walking the line between long-term national interests and short-term public passion, and that line is dynamic

And it's a reason for a free press, to check on and report those lies, which is a different problem today

My answer requires work and generational patience: education. Lies are going to be part of the politician's toolkit but having a well-read populace with good individual critical thinking skills ought to make those tools as obsolete as rowing a trireme into battle. Today, a large enough portion of voters lack those skills as to enable those who will lie