For those interested in the area, Hasen and Lowenstein also have an
excerpt from State of Washington v. 119 Vote No! Committee that struck
down Washington's anti-false statement provision as applied in the
context of a voter initiative campaign. The dissent in the case
claims the majority opinion irepresents the first time a court has
protected calculated falsehoods.
Quoting Rick Hasen <rick.hasen@lls.edu>:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
The cartoon is reprinted in the Lowenstein and Hasen casebook at
579.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:wpmarsha@email.unc.edu">wpmarsha@email.unc.edu</a>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid1076369668.402819041871a@webmail1.isis.unc.edu">
<pre wrap="">The key Ohio case is McKimm v. Ohio Elections Comm.
329 N.E. 368
(2000) in which the Ohio Supreme Court, although not directly
addressing the law's constitutionality, held that the Ohio Elections
Commission could bring an action pursuant to the statute because the
law prohibited only false statements made with actual malice. McKimm
itself involved a cartoon which purportedly suggests that the subject
of the false statement accepted a bribe or a kick-back. Whether the
cartoon actually 'said' that its subject took a bribe or kickback, is
something I will leave for you to decide. See also Pestrak v. Ohio
Elections Comm, 926 F.2d 573 (1991) in which the Sixth Circuit upheld
the constitutionality of the act.
Quoting "Lowenstein, Daniel" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:lowenstein@LAW.UCLA.EDU"><lowenstein@LAW.UCLA.EDU></
a>:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> For those of you who have Rick's and my
Election
Law casebook,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Rick
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">did a chapter on this subject for the Second
Edition. It contains a
lot of
references, although I don't think the Briggs case is one of them.
Thanks,
Allison.
Best,
Daniel Lowenstein
UCLA Law School
405 Hilgard
Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
310-825-5148
-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:AHayward@fec.gov">AHayward@fec.gov</a> [<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:AHayward@fec.gov">mailto:AHayward@fec.gov</a>]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 12:44 PM
To: Lowenstein, Daniel
Cc: Election-law Listserver (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:election-law@majordomo.lls.edu">election-
law@majordomo.lls.edu</a>)
Subject: Re: False and Misleading Speech
I think Briggs v. Ohio Election Commission, a Sixth Circuit decision
from
-- I believe -- 1995, dealt with this issue and determined that as
applied
to the candidate in that case, the law was unconstitutional. I must
admit
that I am doing this from memory, and am not able to look it up at
the
moment, but perhaps someone else is in a better position to discern
whether
Briggs might control.
Allison
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Professor Rick Hasen
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-0019
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:rick.hasen@lls.edu">rick.hasen@lls.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html">http://www.lls.e
du/academics/faculty/hasen.html</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://electionlawblog.org">http://electionlawblog.org</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>