UK Politician Tossed Out Of Parliament For Lying About Opponent During Election
from the wouldn't-that-be-nice... dept
Having just gone through election season here in the US, with all sorts of crazy political claims made in political commercials, it's interesting to see that, over in the UK, one elected member of Parliament, Phil Woolas, recently lost his seat after a court threw out the results of the election because Woolas went "too far in distorting his opponent's positions" (found via Dave Farber). Not only was the election thrown out, and Woolas removed from office, but he's prohibited from serving in Parliament for three years. Harsh.Of course, while this might seem appealing for folks who are fed up with insane and misleading political advertising, as FactCheck.org notes in the link above, thanks to the First Amendment, we actually say it's legal for a politician to lie in that way (though, I would imagine that a defamation lawsuit might be possible). And while that might not seem fair, as FactCheck points out, the idea behind this is that we actually trust the voters to figure things out:
We certainly don't approve of false or misleading political claims, by any candidate or party. But the founders of our democracy left it to the voters, not the courts, to sort fact from fiction.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: free speech, lying, politics, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But....
An honorable, laudible premise, to be sure. Here's the question pertinent in today's political landscape:
What do you do when it's all lies, with little or no fact to be found?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But....
No matter what, in todays world, when voting your choice always comes down to either voting for a giant douche, or a shit sandwich.
Truth is barely relevant to the discussion. Just pick either the shit sandwich or the giant douche and then get on with your life.
; P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But....
....no, I'm not going to do that. I'd rather come up with ways to make things better, even if that means basic discussions with others on the things that need to be corrected....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: But....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: But....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: But....
Put a plan forth and tell people I need those people over here to be elected to do this thing I'm planning to do.
It is not about politics after that point it is about plans, the beauty of it is that 90% of people elected don't get reelected and thus don't have the means to create corrupting roots and it makes it more risky to buy people since you don't know the guy really that well or what he would do.
What people should do, is draft legislation they want and agree on it and vote to a bunch of strangers anyone with a clean background to make that happen, people need to vote on the two houses and the president, there are some things that everyone can agree, leave the controversial stuff out until everyone can agree and elect people to vote on those things then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"we actually say it's legal for a politician to lie"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh, aren't we empowered.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Imagine how dumb the average person is - now statistically, 50% of the people have to be dumber than that. Scary huh - kind of makes you wonder why people follow/endorse the garbage quoted above. Our political climate is flooded with innuendo and meaningless posturing, all fueled by 24/7 "gotcha" media coverage. It's out of control, and no amount of normal-people-figuring-things-out is going to stop it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30917FF345F15738DDDAC0A94DA415B8484F0D3 -- Priest sued for libel in Indianapolis....
http://blog.beliefnet.com/deaconsbench/2010/09/see-you-in-court-falsely-accused- priest-sues-bishop-for-libel.html -- Priest sues Bishop in Pittsburgh
http://www.onpointnews.com/NEWS/priest-sued-for-denouncing-critic-of-sermons-at-mass.h tml -- Parishoner sues priest for defamation
Good enough? Or do you want more?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Living close to that shitbag....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It sounds like you think the US too should have the government involved in determining truth versus falsehood. This is the same kind of misguided attitude that newspapers give when bashing bloggers -- "Only we should have the privilege to tell the public what the truth is." -- and when people sue Google because they don't like what people are saying on the pages returned in a search -- "But but but...Google should know that this web page is saying bad things about me and remove it from its results!"
In both scenarios, the responsibility of determining what is truth and falsehood is being shifted from the individual to some responsible authority. I don't know about you, but I don't want a Ministry of Truth deciding these kinds of things for me. If that means that many people believe the lies of a politician, then so be it. That's just one of the prices of freedom.
As Thomas Jefferson said, "I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them, but to inform them by education."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
England and democracy
As Winston Churchill said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: England and democracy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lying Politicians
What Woolas did, as I understand it, was to strongly suggest that his Lib-Dem opponent associated with Muslim terrorists and not just in an off-hand manner but in print in official election leaflets. The law he was convicted under is deliberately very narrow and specific and relates to attempts to skew public opinion by smearing opponent candidates' good character.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Sticks and stones. People who know you and your reputation won't be swayed by anything the opposition can say about your anyway. People who don't are fools to listen to anyone with an axe to grind against you.
You start telling people what they can say with the color of authority and those same people pretty soon start telling you that you can't say anything about people in power even if they are stealing children and eating them. History is a good teacher, read about it. This issue about making certain speech illegal is a slippery slope, I find it amusing when I read about it there, I get really pissed off when I read when I read about it here. Thank god we have it, otherwise I'd never read about it and be able to do anything about it, would I?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lying Politicians
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But the founders of our democracy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And someone has to be watching all that reality TV.
But I agree with Hulser's comment - we really REALLY need to improve education, and encourage our children to think critically if we want our society to improve.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But....
@Lobo Santo: A change of government would be great, but that wont happen until the people become so fed up with everything that either another revolutionary, or civil war comes about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The MP in question wasn't kicked out solely for lying - he was kicked out for telling demonstrable lies in the last few hours of the campaign.
It is legal to tell lies in the UK in political campaigns and leave it to the electors to deduce intent and decide between candidates just as in the U.S with the exception that one cannot knowingly mislead people on a objective fact in the very last days when opportunities for response are lacking.
So it isn't a situation of a complete absence of freedom of speach in the U.K compared to a presence of complete freedom of speech in the U.S.
It's a law that establishs a few rules intended to ensure a modicrum of equal opportunity to candidates and protection from manipulation to electors in elections at a the cost of a passing interruption to absolute fredom of speech for people seeking election.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But....
Of course there has to be some line as otherwise every politician would be kicked out within weeks of each election. Bunch of lying parasites the lot of them!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]