Ohio insists it can censor pro-life campaign ads
Ohio insists it can censor pro-life campaign ads
Left-leaning ACLU joins conservative justice groups in fight against state
The left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio has joined with conservative organizations such as the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and the Justice and Freedom Fund in a case against the state of Ohio, which insists it has the right to censor campaign ads.
Looming before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is an attempt by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List to have the state’s “false statements” campaign rule thrown out as unconstitutional.
We’re with you, the ACLU said in a filing.
“Ohio’s political false-statement statute … presents a clear facial violation of the First Amendment,” the ACLU said in its filing. “The First Amendment protects free political expression foremost among all areas of speech. American self-governance requires that the public be well-informed not only in facts, but in the broad range of political opinions present in the marketplace of ideas. Restrictions on political speech must therefore be regarded with particular suspicion.”
Another group, the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, said it “supports the invalidation of the statutes at issue in this matter.”
“Constitutionally limited government mandates the protection of free political debate from content-based restriction such as Ohio’s peculiar statutory scheme that appoints panels of politicians as arbiters of the truth of political statements.”
Best-selling author Mark Levin talks about his blueprint to fix America’s broken government, in “The Liberty Amendments.”
It continued: “Because of this statute, people must refrain from speaking because of the potential threat of litigation. The net effect is censorship. By allowing this statute to stand as is, without the option of judicial intervention, citizens of Ohio are in essence being stripped of their First Amendment right and are prevented from hearing an unfettered debate of the issues.”
And the Justice and Freedom Fund, another of the nearly two dozen groups joining the SBA in the case, said: “Ohio has hand-delivered a powerful political weapon to candidates and other politically motivated individuals … [The law] expressly targets and stifles ‘speech uttered during a campaign for political office’ – exactly when the First Amendment has its ‘fullest and most urgent application.’”
The group continued: “Ohio’s statutory scheme encourages manipulation because anyone can easily file a complaint and set the wheels of criminal prosecution in motion – then dismiss it when the election is over and the speech is politically irrelevant. This virtually guarantees not only that speech will be chilled during critical election times, but also that future constitutional injuries will evade review.”
SBA List said about 20 groups have filed documents in support of the its request that the state censorship law be struck down.
A district court judge in 2014 had given SBA List the victory, ruling the Ohio statute is unconstitutional, but the state, insisting it can censor political statements, appealed.
The case originally dates to the 2010 election cycle and already has been before the U.S. Supreme Court.
It was that year that SBA List wanted to post billboards regarding the pro-abortion vote of then-Rep. Steve Driehaus, a Democrat, when he supported Obamacare. SBA List said it was alarmed by the abortion funding in Obamacare, and Driehaus also opposed abortion funding but voted for the bill anyway. SBA List wanted to point that out.
But Driehaus contended there was no abortion funding in the law.
SBA List was prevented from countering Driehaus’ view by the threat of prosecution under Ohio’s false statement law.
Driehaus lost his re-election bid anyway, and later sued SBA list for defamation and loss of livelihood, but that case apparently came to an end last year when the 6th Circuit said his defamation complaint failed because the claim wasn’t false.
That ruling said: “Given the debate prior to passage of the PPACA as to whether it includes taxpayer funding for abortion, the gist or sting of the statements appears to have at least some truth, to be substantially true, or to be subject to differing interpretations. Driehaus vocally opposed the PPACA because of his concerns about federal funding for abortions but he then voted for it anyway despite the absence of his desired language (the Stupak-Pitts Amendment) in the final version. The executive order adds language, but is not part of the PPACA and does not alter the statutory text. In fact, debate continues over the meaning and effect of the PPACA … For SBA List to overcome Driehaus’s defamation claim, it is enough that the statements had some truth, were substantially true, or were subject to differing interpretations. Driehaus’s own change of position demonstrates that they were.”
Separately, the SBA List’s case had been dismissed on claims the group did not have standing to challenge the law, a decision that ultimately the U.S. Supreme overturned.
That sent the case back to the district court, which awarded SBA List victory. The state, claiming its right to censor such ads, then appealed.
WND reported the lower court’s decision. Ohio District Judge Timothy Black found that Ohio could not issue judgments on what is true or false in political campaigns.
The Alliance Defending Freedom and Life Legal Defense Foundation, have said: “Five years into Obamacare, it is now evident that SBA List’s warnings were true. This law is forcing Americans to pay for abortions in numerous ways, and SBA List had a right to say so.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/ohio-insists-it-can-censor-pro-life-campaign-ads/#U11wOzhOmpToeCwd.99