Spin This...

[Dennis1209]

From the foundation of our United States Constitution until present, there has been wild accusations between candidates and political parties in congressional and presidential elections. Some historical political allegations have been so outrageous, it defies logic why the accused did not file slander or libel suites?

In the early years of our political system, they would have a dual of honor to settle the matter.

Fast forward to today's political races. Smear and personal attacks are the norm. A candidate for office can be investigated back to the 3rd grade when a witness comes forth and accuses you of using the "N" word in third grade.

I guess my question is...

When an allegation is factually made against an opposing political candidate so outrageous is can be easily rebuked and proven, why is there no follow up with a law suit for libel or slander?

[Guest FIST]

There is some form of legislation that protects political speech that spews from a politicians mouth. I don't know the specific though.

[tnhawk]

....When an allegation is factually made against an opposing political candidate so outrageous is can be easily rebuked and proven, why is there no follow up with a law suit for libel or slander?

This would result in a severe shortage of politicians. The Capitol buildings would be vacant.

Edited October 10, 2012 by tnhawk

[Guest cardcutter]

Mostly because the court system is so slow that any suit brought would be at least a year before it got a hearing and by then no one cares.

[JAB]

This would result in a severe shortage of politicians. The Capitol buildings would be vacant.

I'm trying to find the negative side to that statement.

[Jonnin]

Lawsuits drag on and on, while the slandered statements have a short term effect of influence on an upcoming election (usually).

Take right now. We have what, 30ish days until election time? Say Mitt decides to sue harry reid for saying he did not pay taxes or whatever it was he said. By the time this suit is settled, obama would have finished his second term and someone else would be running the show. It would not help his cause to sue harry, so all the lawsuit would do is to keep the spotlight on the negative statement for longer (you can be assured that the press would repeatedly post the offending statements) and make Mitt look bad (he who is now behind a cheezy lawsuit). There is no way the suit would create any positive feelings for Mitt in this case, in other words. By ignoring Harry, he is able to focus on positive messages and hope that the truth will come out, making Harry look bad and foolish without doing any additional harm to himself.

Also there is the press angle. The press is going to make anyone that sues them look bad. If I am not mistaken, a lot of the press is owned by just a few larger entities. So sue one, and they will all (or many) turn on you. Bad plan for an upcoming election.