We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
(DON'T) LIE TO ME: CAN FALSE POLITICAL STATEMENT LAWS BE REHABILITATED AFTER THE SIXTH CIRCUIT'S SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST RULING?
- Authors
Sabourin, Clay
- Abstract
To put it mildly, laws criminalizing false political statements have proven to be controversial. In the wake of the Supreme Court of the United States' ruling in U.S. v. Alvarez, several state statutes which punish false statements made regarding candidates running for public office have been deemed unconstitutional. As vividly exemplified by the Sixth Circuit's recent holding in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus and the Eighth Circuit's holding in 281 Care Comm. v. Arneson, this invalidation trend does not appear to be stalling any time soon. Despite the apparent inevitable demise of many current formulations of false political statement laws, it is important to examine exactly why these laws have been deemed to fail on constitutional grounds. Furthermore, the question is begged as to what, if anything, can be salvaged from these laws, and is there any value in doing so? This note aims to explore recent and historical developments regarding false political statement laws, giving special attention to Supreme Court decisions. Ohio's struggles with false political statement laws are additionally explored in-depth. This note concludes with a compilation of deficiencies that have consistently been found regarding false political statement laws, and a proposal for improvement through new legislation.
- Subjects
UNITED States; FALSE testimony laws; UNITED States v. Alvarez-Machain; EXTRADITION policy; JUDICIAL assistance; CRIMINAL procedure; LAW
- Publication
Northern Kentucky Law Review, 2017, Vol 44, Issue 2, p270
- ISSN
0198-8549
- Publication type
Article