If Germany has laws that prevent defamatory ads so can we

[Rosa Luxemburg]

I was listening to the radio a couple of days ago. There was a German woman explaiing that in germany they are not allowed to have untruthful ads and are not allowed to put other brands down in commercials. Maybe we should take note?

[breakingnewz]

1. Makes perfect sense to me

McCain would be in jail by now if that were the case, hehe.

[RollWithIt]

2. Not a good comparison because of Nazi Germany...

We have free speech. Though I would agree that the FEC needs to be built up to combat election fraud, including speech.

[denverbill]

12. Does free speech give me the right to broadcast that Jews are vermin, deserving extermination?

If so, Goebbels got a bad rap. He was just exercising his free speech rights when he fanned the hatred of Jews in Nazi Germany.

How is it any different for Limbaugh to call liberals more dangerous to America than terrorists? Or to call Obama a Marxist who wants to destroy America? Or for Coulter to suggest that a liberal be killed to set an example to other liberals? It didn't take much in Germany for ordinary Germans to suddenly feel such hatred for the Jews that Kristalnacht didn't really seem all that outrageous to them. We've already seen one right-wing nut shoot up a liberal-oriented church, solely because they were liberal. Now we've got these nut-cases jamming gun shops. How much more do we need to see? Does Obama have to die before we take action?

It's one thing to oppose someone's beliefs and make reasonable argument against them. It's another thing altogether to resort to venomous and completely untrue character attacks designed to incite hatred.

[RollWithIt]

13. While I agree with your premise...

Our constitution states that Americans are indeed allowed to say the terrible things you talked about. That's the 1st Amendment. Open society. BUT, we are allowed to shame the people who said them and defeat them in open elections. That's the interesting part.

[denverbill]

23. People are allowed to say them, but not broadcast them on our airwaves.

Otherwise, the American Nazi party would long ago have bought up a tiny radio station and broadcast their bullshit long, long ago.

It's not ok for radio personalities to make a living demonizing blacks, belittling them, making jokes about them, calling them criminals and low-lifes. It's not ok for them to do it to Jews. And it's not ok for them to do it about liberals either.

[TommyO]

29. Then why are there so many radio personalities doing just that?

Heck, Rush just got a big new contract to continue to spread his hate and lies.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

33. the Nazis are not in charge of Germany now and the rules today in Germany are good

[Thothmes]

17. It allows you to broadcast that nazi's are scum deserving to be

sent to the Hague. Free speech is just that, Free. In this country the nazis at Skokie Ill, can speak their mind. Gus Hall can preach the Communits Party line. Rush Limbaugh can blather to his hearts content. Do you really want the government determining what we can say. You may think that is ok when Obama is in the White House, but what happens when the repubs win it again

[denverbill]

26. Yes, I want government to set limits on broadcasting, as they are obligated to under the law.

Just as they can fine a station a million dollars for a 1 second, mostly obscured peek at Janet Jackson's right tit, or fine a station $100,000 for allowing a caller to say 'fuck' on the air.

Whether you agree with either of the above or neither, the fact remains that the FCC is supposed to make sure broadcasters operate in the public interest, and it's not in the public interest to have 1/3 or 1/5 or 1/10 of the country in a rabid, hate-filled frenzy because they believe that Obama is a marxist, islamic terrorist.

Conservatives, and liberals, should be free to broadcast their opinions and critique the opposition, but standards need to be set to prevent critique from becoming demonization.

[Thothmes]

27. The public interest is to be determined by who?

When Democrates control government, they will determine that the limbaughs of the world need to be silenced for the common good. When the pubs are in controll,you can guess how they will determine the "public good". Let them rant. The real problem is that in the last 15 years or so those that have Liberal leaning have been almost incapable of fielding a viable response to the Limbaughs and the Hannitys of the world. So as a response, the pat answer is to knock them off the air. What we really need to do is build a media system that can compete with those people. Otherwise, the message is that Democrats do not support the first amendment of the Constitution.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Goebbels controlled all media outlets in Germany.

He was not just one of many voices. Yes, you may give a speech in support of the extermination of the jews, that is your right. Nobody is required to broadcast your speech, or print it in their newspaper, or rent you space on their billboard. But you are free to stand on the street and give your speech. Have at it.

[denverbill]

24. Yes, anyone can stand on a street corner and speak.

But the FCC has been mandated to "to base our broadcast licensing decisions on the determination of whether those actions will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity."

Anyone who really thinks that it's in the public interest to have right-wingers heading to gunshops and talking about revolution because their chief propagandists having gotten them whipped up into a hating a 'marxist, islamist, black-liberation theology believin' President, who in fact is a moderate Christian, should really reexamine their thought processes. Any station in the country that broadcasts hateful, racist crap would lose it's license. Stations that continue to broadcast the hate-filled rants of Limbaugh and Savage should lose theirs as well.

Anyone can open a newspaper and write whatever the hell they want. But there are a limited number of broadcasting frequencies available, and as such, the government controls them. Anyone who is granted a license to use the public airwaves does so with the understanding that they have an obligation to serve the public interest.

[Uzybone]

28. Yes it does. You need to read the constitution.

[denverbill]

41. I've read the Constitution, several times. And the Bill of Rights.

And nowhere is radio or television broadcasting discussed.

Where radio and television are discussed is in the FCC charter, which gives the FCC the right to regulate content.

It's absolutely ludicrous to think the FCC would not yank the license of any radio station that broadcast that kind of racist/bigoted shit. If they can fine TV stations millions of dollars for showing 1/2 second of Janet Jackson's tit, or fine radio stations because a caller says 'fuck', they can sure as hell regulate bigoted, divisive crap, whether it's against Jews, blacks, liberals or conservatives.

[Cleita]

3. Watch all the fat corporation lawyers arrive en masse defending the

First Amendment rights of Proctor & Gamble, et al.

:popcorn:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

34. Germans must be able to curb their fat corp. lawyers

[BrklynLiberal]

4. The biggest opponents would be the media. They make billions from adivertizing..

The more controversial, the better for them..

[elleng]

5. We've got the First Amendment.

Several of our Constitutional attributes make impossible what has occurred in Germany.

[ROh70]

10. The First Amendment isn't necessarily a barrier to such laws.

We have defamation laws on the books already. This would be just another defamation law dealing with political advertisements.

The thing is, I'm not sure it would be a good thing to open up elections to litigation. I think a better alternative, instead of passing a law, is to create a non-partisan, independent commission to evaluate and rate the truthfulness of ads. Just like the way movies are given ratings.

[onenote]

37. who says defamation laws don't apply to political advertisements

The station is immune, but the person responsible for the ad isn't. A couple of such suits were filed this election cycle.

Of course, maintaining a defamation suit against a public official or public figure is very difficult because of.... the First Amendment. See NY Times v. Sullivan.

[The Wielding Truth]

6. Wasn't that part of the Fairness Doctrine that was scrapped by

a Republican bulled congress in 1987 after being weakened and gutted be Reagan's lawyers?

Wouldn't it when reinstated the inequity in political campaigning?

[Tumbulu]

7. Yes we can! (nt)

[Undercurrent]

8. This is comparing apples to oranges.

Our rights of free speech are codified by our Constitution.

The Germans can do what they choose in accordance with their's.

[Eric J in MN]

9. Companies should be able to compare their products to the competition in ads.

Germany is wrong if it prohibits that.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

35. The UK prohibits it too

[cooolandrew]

11. It should be about the policy not personal attack so yeah. 1st ammednmant protects the people over >

the government really.

[mtnsnake]

14. I wonder how long Limbaugh would last in Germany

before they booted his fat ass out.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

36. probably 1 day

[RoyGBiv]

15. Unreal n/t

[ben_meyers]

16. The 1st amendment is not to protect popular and polite

speech, it is to protect unpopular and controversial speech and ideas. Who will you appoint to decide which is which? Are you going to decide what is truthful or not?

It's really dangerous to have someone with a lack of understanding proposing such things.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

38. In Europe they seem to be able to deal with it

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Not without a constitutional amendment abolishing the first one.

Especially if you are referring to political ads. Who exactly would be judging which political ads were 'defamatory' and which not?

[Occam Bandage]

20. Germany does not have the 1st Amendment. nt

[Sodan]

21. Most European countries don't allow political tv ads.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

39. I don't like TV ads

[elleng]

22. For Our Information:

Freedom of speech is not absolute. Defamatory speechspeech that negatively reflects on someone else's reputationis one type of speech that is limited. The two kinds of defamation are libel (written defamation), and slander (spoken defamation). In order to win a defamation suit, a plaintiff must prove that the information was false. The courts treat private persons differently than public figures in defamation cases. A public figure plaintiff must prove not only that the information is false, but that the speaker or publisher either knew the words were false, or spoke or published the words with a reckless disregard for whether they were false or not. Furthermore, a person must be identified in order for defamation to have occurred. The identification occurs either when a person is directly named or when he or she is described so specifically as to be recognizable.
There are two principal defenses to defamation: truth and consent. Generally, if a statement is true, it is not actionable as libel or slander even though it may have harmed someone's reputation. A statement of opinion ordinarily cannot be the basis of a libel suit, but a false statement that hurts the reputation of a business, accuses someone of a crime, or impugns chastity is likely to be found to be defamatory. Clearly, the safest approach in publishing or broadcasting negative information about someone else is to make sure it is factually accurate. Any person who offers his or her consent to the transmission or publication of defaming information also faces a defense of consent in a libel or slander suit. In addition, people who are not in the public spotlight, whose livelihoods do not otherwise depend on a favorable public perception, or who are deceased cannot generally be greatly damaged by defamatory remarks.

In determining damages awards, courts tend to take into account the number of people who heard or read the defamatory information. The greater the number of people, the greater the damage award. State and federal laws almost never allow courts to prevent libel or slander from occurring. That is, one cannot go to court and use libel law to prevent someone else from publishing a defamatory book. But because defamation law does allow for civil action after the libel or slander has occurred, many times the subject of the potentially defamatory material is successful in preventing the defamation by threatening to go to court if the material is published


Federal Law
There are several federal statutes that regulate advertising. It is unlawful under federal law for a person, partnership, or corporation to disseminate any false advertisement, or to engage in unfair or deceptive acts. For example, under the federal Lanham Act, a person who uses any word, term, name, symbol or device or any false designation of origin likely to cause confusion or deception, in connection with the sale of goods or services, is liable for civil damages. Also, a person can be liable for damages if his or her commercial advertising or promotion misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographical origin of goods, services, or commercial activities. Advertising agencies have been held liable simply by participating in the creation, development, or propagation of a false advertising campaign. Advertisements also may cause copyright infringement claims.

http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/il/law/advertmed.html

[treestar]

25. How is it enforced?

The problem here would be, if the repubs were the ones enforcing it, a "lie" would be "true" and the "truth" would be a "lie."

[WinkyDink]

30. Does Germany have our Constitution? I think not. Consider: Scientology.

[onenote]

31. we have defamation laws. and we have truth in advertising laws applicable to commercial speech

And we have a first amendment that keeps the government out of the business of judging political speech.

Study American history. Long before radio and television, there were newspapers. And those newspapers printed all kinds of scurrilous information about this candidate or that candidate. And the government wisely stayed out of it. And when radio and television came along, the government did stick a toe in the water of regulating speech, but it had the good (and constitutionally mandated) sense to include a provision in the law stating that broadcasters may not censor ads from candidates.

Either broadcasters run all candidate ads or you give them the freedom to accept some and reject others. I know which of those results I prefer.

[kryckis]

32. We have the same laws in Sweden

Political tv ads are not even permitted (on state and terrestrial tv I should add).

[Rosa Luxemburg]

40. Good!

I think we can learn a lot from countries like Sweden