Why arn't political personal attacks considered defamation?

[Bill3000]

This confuses me. Granted, I know it's obviously going to be impractical and hard to prove, and probably impossible to get a solution until after an election cycle, but nonetheless, it seems like blatent personal attacks - such as attack ads - that would be considered blatant defamation on even regular public figures doesn't count in an election cycle. Anyone have an idea as to why it's not legally considered as such?

(Oh, and an explanation larger than merely "first amendment", please )

 

[warpus]

Because then nobody would remember the commercials, people would forget to vote, and American democracy would collapse.

 

[El_Machinae]

Does a PAC or a political campaign have any assets to seize after an election?
Can you prove willful lying?
Does it matter after the election? It's not like the election is going to be undone. This means that any dirty tricks are going to be accepted: winner take all.

 

[Gilder]

Tradition? Conspiracy? Bad press?

 

[silver 2039]

Its tradition:

http://www.cracked.com/article_16680_5-presidential-elections-even-dumber-than-this-one-somehow.html

When the election of 1800 rolled around, again between Adams (now president) and Jefferson (his vice), someone stood up and said "How about we just make up . .. .. .. . about the other guy?" A revolutionary idea was born, and it changed American politics forever.

So President Adams' team sent out pamphlets saying if Jefferson was elected he would destroy Christianity, and that, "prostitutes...will preside in the sanctuaries now devoted to the worship of the Most High."

When the threat of an all-hooker church wasn't effective enough to destroy Jefferson's career, Adams' Federalists stepped up their game, explaining that Jefferson's America would involve the "teaching of murder robbery, rape, adultery and incest". Thomas Jefferson wants "murder robbery" taught in our elementary schools, people!

Jefferson knew that the Federalists were hurling . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . and, not to be outdone, he actually went out and hired a professional . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .-hurler, James Callendar. Armed with nothing but an incredible imagination and a total lack of morals, Callendar effectively convinced a good portion of America that Adams "desperately wanted to attack France" and would if reelected (Americans still liked the French back then, for helping us with the Revolutionary War and all).

This election set the standard for filthy, misleading campaigning. The technique of taking a real quote (Jefferson saying he believes the current religious institutions lead to corruption) and exaggerating it to the point of absurdity (Jefferson wants to blow up Christianity and eat the baby Jesus) was born, and used in every single election since.

 

[Onionsoilder]

Because then nobody would remember the commercials, people would forget to vote, and American democracy would collapse.

I beg to differ. How can you not remember this one?

 

[Godwynn]

Depends on if the person is a "public" figure or not.

Or so my Business Law textbook says.

 

[Defiant47]

The exceptions for defamation explicitly include members of the house of commons (specifically when a meeting is in session, but I'm sure it extends to political campaigns).

 

[Cutlass]

it's not worth the effort to go after it.

 

[dwaxe]

It's tradition. But I would love to see an Obama vs. McCain court case on the issue of political defamation.

 

[Imaginos]

In Singapore they will be. Certain persons in the Govt have used it many times. It's like an annual affair... almost every year there's at least one...
and more during election years.

 

[Perfection]

I believe they can be, for example, if I were to take out ads calling Obama a rapist with no evidence. Calling them irresponsible, wrong, or a-holes are personal opinions which are covered by free speech.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Well, it's the First Amendment.

Seriously, though, it's because they're public officials. You have to prove "actual malice" -- that the speaker knew the information to be false or made the statement with a reckless disregard to the truth (the same mental state required for fraud, incidentally). The Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan noted that "the debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." The Court went on to quote another case:

In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy.

It's basically the decision to err on the side of too much speech, which characterized much of 20th Century First Amendment jurisprudence.

As for situations where you think one candidate can show "actual malice," it's probably a matter of the court system moving too slowly, the problem of prior restraints for repetition of the statements, and the perception the public will have of a candidate who sues his opponent.

Cleo

 

[Arwon]

Court cases surely take too long to resolve the issue in time?

 

[Berzerker]

Alien & Sedition Act was an early attempt to quiet critics, it didn't go over too well

 

[illram]

Because it's all true!

Actually... what Cleo said.

 

[MamboJoel]

Sueing people attacking you doesn't give a good image of you to the public. It rather gives an image of somebody that doesn't handle the critics easily.

 

[aelf]

That would easily turn into a good way to control political opposition. Whoever has the power and resources would be able to use it against his opponents, further entrenching himself. Case in point: Singapore, as someone has mentioned.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

One of the main reasons is that it would require suing the opposition, wasting money on court fees that could be used fighting back in the court of public opinion, appearing petty, and it wouldn't get resolved until well after the election is over, and this the decision wouldn't be helpful.