Chilling Speech Is No Laughing Matter

If a state’s truth ministry has threatened to prosecute you for something you said during an election campaign, can you sue? Of course, said the unanimous Supreme Court, with what would undoubtedly have been a guffaw if one could be conveyed in a legal opinion. While the Court left it to its lesser brethren to deal further with a law that criminalizes making “false statements” — whatever that means: too many Pinocchios? — about political candidates, the satirical graffiti is clearly on the wall for that Buckeye bunkum.


As Cato’s brief alongside P.J. O’Rourke made clear, allegations, insinuations, “truthiness,” smears, and all that other rigmarole have been part and parcel of American political discourse since time immemorial. Indeed political speech — including lies, so long as they’re not defamatory (for which there are clear legal standards) — resides firmly in the throbbing heart of the First Amendment. It’s farcical to think that a legislature could charge a panel of bureaucrats (like the state election commission here) with enforcing some sort of Marquess of Queensberry debate rules.


While standing is often hard to come by, even the most curmudgeonly jurisprudential sticklers can see that political advocates have to be able to challenge a law that restricts political advocacy — one that’s already been used against them, no less! At the end of the day and in the fullness of time, today was a banner morning for free speech and judicial engagement.