Sunday, August 07, 2011

Politician sues over criticism of how he voted in Congress

Because the statements about him misrepresented his votes, he claims
In a case that could test the bounds of free speech, a former Democratic congressman has been allowed to proceed with his lawsuit against a prominent pro-life group that he claims contributed to his election defeat by spreading falsehoods about his record on abortion issues.

A federal judge in Ohio ruled Monday that former Rep. Steve Driehaus' defamation suit against the Susan B. Anthony List can go forward. The former Ohio congressman claims the group "disseminated lies" about him, effectively costing him his job -- as well as inflicting "reputational" and "economic" harm.

The complaint stems from statements and advertisements claiming Driehaus, who considers himself a pro-life lawmaker, voted for taxpayer-funded abortion when he backed the federal health care overhaul.

But the case raises apparent free-speech concerns, considering politicians frequently endure fierce and sustained criticism from multiple groups in the heat of a campaign and, from time to time, lose because of that criticism. Even the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio filed a brief on a related, but separate, case last fall arguing that "the people have an absolute right to criticize their public officials."

Emily Buchanan, director of the Susan B. Anthony List, said the case could have a chilling effect on speech. "The claim of defamation is outrageous. Driehaus is a public official, and we should be able to criticize him," she told FoxNews.com. "And all of this debate should be taking place in the public square. A court or a judge should not be determining" a dispute over abortion policy.

Source

If he succeeds in this, it would set the precedent that false statements in politics are actionable. The whole Democratic party could end up in court!

3 comments:

A. Levy said...

Without lies, there would be no Demoncrats, nor would there be an MSM.

Stan B said...

If Driehaus is successful, it will be the greatest example of "unintended consequences" of all time! Imagine if using misleading or open to interpretation information in a political campaign were actionable....

Anonymous said...

The big question to be answered in this lawsuit is the amount he's claiming in damages.

Did losing his election cost him his congressional salary, or the millions in 'benefits' that he had lined up?