Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Bad group's ads calling bad politicians who voted for Obamacare baby-killers, and bad, were all good for unanimous Supreme Court; Amnesty International unavailable for comment   (acluohio.org ) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1230 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jun 2014 at 11:22 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-17 08:42:30 AM  
*blinks*

what?
 
2014-06-17 09:14:20 AM  

somedude210: *blinks*

what?


Fartbongo caught sayof
 
2014-06-17 10:53:13 AM  
The headline makes my thinking place go owie.
 
2014-06-17 11:20:30 AM  
o_O
 
2014-06-17 11:24:23 AM  
Who what said, huh?
 
2014-06-17 11:24:48 AM  
I think I'm having a stroke after reading that headline 8x.  Someone please call 911 so I can appear before an Obamacare death panel  to decide my fate.
 
2014-06-17 11:24:58 AM  
Could someone please translate the headline?  I don't speak Farkstickistanian.
 
2014-06-17 11:25:38 AM  
The link just goes to some legal crap indicating that the case is unresolved.  I want to be outraged--I think--but I have no idea what's going on.
 
2014-06-17 11:25:56 AM  
Sarah Palin's writing Fark headlines now?
 
2014-06-17 11:25:58 AM  

Byno: I think I'm having a stroke after reading that headline 8x.  Someone please call 911 so I can appear before an Obamacare death panel  to decide my fate.


Well, we're out of cake.
 
2014-06-17 11:26:09 AM  
The Susan B. Anthony List (an anti-abortion group) fell afoul of an Ohio law prohibiting putting false statements about candidates in political ads.

The SCOTUS didn't strike down the law; rather, they ruled that SBAL has properly timed standing to challenge the law. Whether the law will stand or not is far from clear, but this rules the SBAL gets their day in court.
 
2014-06-17 11:26:10 AM  
Am I drunk or is that really the headline?
 
2014-06-17 11:27:10 AM  

AMonkey'sUncle: Sarah Palin's writing Fark headlines now?


I think those were Casey Kasem's last words.
 
2014-06-17 11:27:30 AM  
I feel smart. I only had to read that headline twice to understand what it was saying.

I still had to google the story to make sure I understood correctly that the Supreme Court ruled that you have a right to lie in political ads, though.
 
2014-06-17 11:27:54 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: somedude210: *blinks*

what?

Fartbongo caught sayof


Is he bad or not? Fox says yes.
 
2014-06-17 11:28:56 AM  
Subby, you're having a stroke.  Seek medical attention immediately.
 
2014-06-17 11:28:58 AM  

Delta1212: I feel smart. I only had to read that headline twice to understand what it was saying.

I still had to google the story to make sure I understood correctly that the Supreme Court ruled that you have a right to lie in political ads, though.


You didn't understand correctly.
 
2014-06-17 11:29:02 AM  
They're fighting for the right to lie.
 
2014-06-17 11:29:07 AM  

abb3w: The Susan B. Anthony List (an anti-abortion group) fell afoul of an Ohio law prohibiting putting false statements about candidates in political ads.

The SCOTUS didn't strike down the law; rather, they ruled that SBAL has properly timed standing to challenge the law. Whether the law will stand or not is far from clear, but this rules the SBAL gets their day in court.


Reported to modmins: off-topic post

This thread is about subby's stroke and subsequent Wernicke's aphasia, not your abortion fetish.
 
2014-06-17 11:29:09 AM  

abb3w: The Susan B. Anthony List (an anti-abortion group) fell afoul of an Ohio law prohibiting putting false statements about candidates in political ads.

The SCOTUS didn't strike down the law; rather, they ruled that SBAL has properly timed standing to challenge the law. Whether the law will stand or not is far from clear, but this rules the SBAL gets their day in court.


Oh good, that's somewhat better.
 
2014-06-17 11:29:57 AM  

Delta1212: I feel smart. I only had to read that headline twice to understand what it was saying.

I still had to google the story to make sure I understood correctly that the Supreme Court ruled that you have a right to lie in political ads, though.


Nope, not yet. All the Supreme Court did was rule that the case that will (in all probability) confirm that you have the right to lie in political ads will go forward.
 
2014-06-17 11:29:59 AM  

jso2897: Delta1212: I feel smart. I only had to read that headline twice to understand what it was saying.

I still had to google the story to make sure I understood correctly that the Supreme Court ruled that you have a right to lie in political ads, though.

You didn't understand correctly.


I actually understood better before I googled it. That will teach me to try to look things up instead of going with first impressions.
 
2014-06-17 11:31:02 AM  

abb3w: Whether the law will stand or not is far from clear


Not really. It's waaaaay too broad, criminalizing any false statement about a voting record regardless of materiality or intent, and also criminalizes any false statement made knowingly or recklessly, regardless of harm. So, for example, saying "Senator Johnson was not present for the vote on X" when Johnson was present but abstaining would be criminal. Or saying "Senator Johnson is a Martian, although I hear he likes to visit Uranus"  would be criminal.

Could a law preventing maliciously false statements made with intent to harm someone's reputation stand? Sure. Is this that law? Heck no.
 
2014-06-17 11:31:35 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: They're fighting for the right to lie.


Rest assured it's only a small part of the greater fight for the right to party.
 
2014-06-17 11:34:25 AM  

abb3w: The Susan B. Anthony List (an anti-abortion group) fell afoul of an Ohio law prohibiting putting false statements about candidates in political ads.

The SCOTUS didn't strike down the law; rather, they ruled that SBAL has properly timed standing to challenge the law. Whether the law will stand or not is far from clear, but this rules the SBAL gets their day in court.


THIS IS AN OUTRA.... whut?  All the way to the SCOTUS just to get standing?.... so how did they get standing in the first place.
 
2014-06-17 11:34:37 AM  
Has subby really been far even as decided to use even go want to do headline like?
 
2014-06-17 11:36:04 AM  

qorkfiend: Delta1212: I feel smart. I only had to read that headline twice to understand what it was saying.

I still had to google the story to make sure I understood correctly that the Supreme Court ruled that you have a right to lie in political ads, though.

Nope, not yet. All the Supreme Court did was rule that the case that will (in all probability) confirm that you have the right to lie in political ads will go forward.


Even if they prevail, it would only strike down this law that provides criminal penalties for libeling a politician. It would in no way effect the civil sanctions that exist for libel, or shield anyone who commits libel from civil action.
 
2014-06-17 11:37:51 AM  

Saiga410: abb3w: The Susan B. Anthony List (an anti-abortion group) fell afoul of an Ohio law prohibiting putting false statements about candidates in political ads.

The SCOTUS didn't strike down the law; rather, they ruled that SBAL has properly timed standing to challenge the law. Whether the law will stand or not is far from clear, but this rules the SBAL gets their day in court.

THIS IS AN OUTRA.... whut?  All the way to the SCOTUS just to get standing?.... so how did they get standing in the first place.


Friends in high places
 
2014-06-17 11:39:13 AM  

Saiga410: abb3w: The Susan B. Anthony List (an anti-abortion group) fell afoul of an Ohio law prohibiting putting false statements about candidates in political ads.

The SCOTUS didn't strike down the law; rather, they ruled that SBAL has properly timed standing to challenge the law. Whether the law will stand or not is far from clear, but this rules the SBAL gets their day in court.

THIS IS AN OUTRA.... whut?  All the way to the SCOTUS just to get standing?.... so how did they get standing in the first place.


Why wouldn't they be able to appeal when their lawsuit got dismissed for lack of standing?
 
2014-06-17 11:39:37 AM  
Bad headline was approved by drunk Fark admins.
 
2014-06-17 11:40:05 AM  
Am I having a stroke or does this headline read like a bunch of words strung together in a nonsensical fashion?
 
2014-06-17 11:40:10 AM  

jso2897: it would only strike down this law that provides criminal penalties for libeling a politician


Hmmm  I wonder how this would marry with the IL law that allows for the criminalization of impersonating a politician even in gross satarization.  Had a kid in my area start a twiter account under the name of the Peoria IL mayor and he cursed up a storm and posted trolly stuff.  That eventually lead to a SWAT raid.... I mean full on doorbusting, guns drawn.
 
2014-06-17 11:42:44 AM  

Dr Dreidel: This thread is about subby's stroke and subsequent Wernicke's aphasia, not your abortion fetish.


Can this condition be freely acquired or must it be earned?  I'm just asking for a "friend" who needs more green lights.
 
2014-06-17 11:44:38 AM  

Geotpf: Bad headline was approved by drunk Fark admins.


You slanderous devil! Of all the nerve...implying that there are occasions where Fark admins are not drunk.
 
2014-06-17 11:44:40 AM  
I gotta say, the plaintiffs in this case are asses, but it's not illegal to be an ass. The First Amendment is important, and the Court made the right decision here, even if it was just to give them standing.
 
2014-06-17 11:45:08 AM  
Group is ultra-stupid, but I don't think politicians should be able to sue their constituents over moderately misleading statements.
 
2014-06-17 11:45:44 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: They're fighting for the right to lie.


And to think, it wasn't that long ago that all people fought for was the right to party.
 
2014-06-17 11:46:44 AM  

ikanreed: Group is ultra-stupid, but I don't think politicians should be able to sue their constituents over moderately misleading statements.


Honestly...I don't think they should be able to sue them over grossly misleading statements. Even if something is patently false, we should have the right to say whatever we want about our elected officials, short of advocating violence.
 
2014-06-17 11:49:27 AM  
Oh good, everyone's confused.
 
2014-06-17 11:51:54 AM  
This headline made me have a spontaneous abortion.
 
2014-06-17 11:53:27 AM  
That's the kind of headache that can resonate all of the way down to the corns on your feet and back up again.

So "catchy" headlines get the green. How do word salad headlines get greened?
 
2014-06-17 11:55:23 AM  

Mikey1969: That's the kind of headache that can resonate all of the way down to the corns on your feet and back up again.

So "catchy" headlines get the green. How do word salad headlines get greened?


High fiber content?
 
2014-06-17 11:56:41 AM  
I just have one question for Subby: WHO WAS PHONE?
 
2014-06-17 11:57:46 AM  

BitwiseShift: Dr Dreidel: This thread is about subby's stroke and subsequent Wernicke's aphasia, not your abortion fetish.

Can this condition be freely acquired or must it be earned?  I'm just asking for a "friend" who needs more green lights.


You'll need brain damage to a very specific area. Knock yourself out. ;)
 
2014-06-17 11:59:23 AM  

Theaetetus: abb3w: Whether the law will stand or not is far from clear

Not really. It's waaaaay too broad, criminalizing any false statement about a voting record regardless of materiality or intent, and also criminalizes any false statement made knowingly or recklessly, regardless of harm. So, for example, saying "Senator Johnson was not present for the vote on X" when Johnson was present but abstaining would be criminal. Or saying "Senator Johnson is a Martian, although I hear he likes to visit Uranus"  would be criminal.

Could a law preventing maliciously false statements made with intent to harm someone's reputation stand? Sure. Is this that law? Heck no.


Which means, given this SCOTUS, I can foresee a ruling stating that it's okay to lie as long as you have at least two (2) corporate sponsors and a minimum credit limit of $10k.
 
2014-06-17 12:00:37 PM  
Who in the what now?
 
2014-06-17 12:01:37 PM  

Lord Dimwit: ikanreed: Group is ultra-stupid, but I don't think politicians should be able to sue their constituents over moderately misleading statements.

Honestly...I don't think they should be able to sue them over grossly misleading statements. Even if something is patently false, we should have the right to say whatever we want about our elected officials, short of advocating violence.


On that note, I'm forming a new political action committee.  Here's the text of our first ad:

[REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN] is running for re-election in [INSERT STATE HERE] and has been endorsed by Glenn Beck.  But why won't Glenn Beck answer allegations that he raped and killed a girl in 1990?  We can't afford to elect a Congressman who supports rape and murder.  Demand answers from Glenn Beck and demand change in Congress.
 
2014-06-17 12:04:19 PM  

Delta1212: I still had to google the story to make sure I understood correctly that the Supreme Court ruled that you have a right to lie in political ads, though.


That is not what the Supreme Court ruled. The Supreme Court ruled that the Susan B. Anthony List had proper standing to challenge the law in court. They did not rule on the merits of the case, since a merits question was not before the Court. This case may very well come before the Court on a merits question in the future, and I'd actually bet on that happening, but all the Supreme Court did here was to order the District Court to actually hear the case. If everything goes well at the District Court level, the Judge there will issue an opinion on the merits, presumably dealing with the 1st Amendment. The District Court opinion will establish the evidentiary basis of the case and probably define the scope of legal issues involved. That decision will then be appealed to the Circuit Court, which will issue an opinion that nobody will care about because it will immediately be appealed to the Supreme Court. SCROTUS will take the case. Only at that point will they decide whether or not you have a right to lie during a political campaign.
 
2014-06-17 12:06:36 PM  
"bad" is the headline.
 
2014-06-17 12:07:41 PM  

cptjeff: That decision will then be appealed to the Circuit Court, which will issue an opinion that nobody will care about because it will immediately be appealed to the Supreme Court. SCROTUS will take the case. SCROTUS will decline to take the case, sending everyone rushing back to read the Circuit Court's opinion that no one read the first time through.


:)
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report