Supreme Court allows pro-life group to challenge Ohio ban on campaign false statements

FoxNews.com ^ | 16- June-2014 | FoxNews.com

[topher]

he Supreme Court delivered a major victory on Monday to an anti-abortion group that sought to challenge an Ohio law that bans campaign statements deemed to be false.

The justices, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the Susan B. Anthony List can go ahead with a lawsuit challenging the law as a violation of free-speech rights.

[topher]

Unanimous Decision

[Dr. Sivana]

Who does the “deeming”?

[topher]

Time to take DemonRat (Democrat) Steve Driehaus to the cleaners with the lawsuit...

[yldstrk]

“false” according to whom?

[SoFloFreeper]

It shouldn’t even be a QUESTION. Political speech is PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

[topher]

That is the whole point of the Supreme Court decision: this is free speech. Therefore, no one can deem that "Susan B. Anthony" made false statements.

They have thrown the Ohio law out as against free speech...

[topher]

The whom that decided it was false was quite arbitrary.

Ohio ruled against Susan B. Anthony saying they made false statements.

This is why the Supreme Court made a unanimous decision to strike down the Ohio law: it violated free speech rights.

As we used to say on Freerepublic at one time, this is HUGH (huge).

[topher]

Hence this was a no-brainer for SCOTUS -- both liberals and conservatives agreed this was a violation of Free Speech.

Rarely do you get such a unanimous decision from SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States).

[Colonel_Flagg]

I’m surprised Roberts didn’t call it a tax.

[topher]

Too soon for SCOTUSBLOG.com to have any comments. I imagine someone is frantically work on some comments on this opinion (or not so frantically).

[gdani]

That is the whole point of the Supreme Court decision: this is free speech. Therefore, no one can deem that "Susan B. Anthony" made false statements.

They have thrown the Ohio law out as against free speech...

The U.S. Supreme Court did no such thing. The Court decided plaintiffs have provided enough evidence to continue with their lawsuit against the Ohio law & remanded the case.

The final word on whether the law itself is constitutional is still years away.

In other words, this was a case/decision about the legal standing of the plaintiffs, not the underlying law.

[topher]

Link to PDF of decision on SupremeCourt.gov

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-193_omq2.pdf

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[Principled]

+1

[Go Gordon]

It shouldn’t even be a QUESTION. Political speech is PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT

If the "political speech" is demonstrably false, why don't politicians simply bring a lawsuit against the perpetrator? It would only take a few victories in court before all political campaigns straightened out/up.

[Tzimisce]

Um - Obamacare DOES use taxpayer money for abortions.

Global Warming has been deemed true by our government.

[Salvation]

Pro life victory!

[DCBryan1]

Any 2nd Amendment/gun rights/concealed carry cases before SCOTUS?

[G Larry]

Before we Pro-Life folks get too excited by this ruling, be advised this is both complex AND dual-edged.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Nope. 14 more decisions are due before the end of June, but none of 2A significance.