At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
Imagine you hear a radio ad that says a candidate for mayor of your city bribed local organizations to gain their votes. Which of the following is true? (3 points) a. If the accusation is true, the First Amendment protects the maker of the radio advertisement. b. If the accusation is false, the First Amendment protects the maker of the radio advertisement. c. The candidate can sue the maker of the ad because the First Amendment protects nothing said on radio. d. The candidate can sue the maker of the ad because the First Amendment protects everything people say. I think its either A or B, Im confused about which is which.
That is strange. Both (a) and (b) are true. The First Amendment protects political speech very strongly, and you can pretty much say nearly anything in a political ad without fear of retaliation or liability in a lawsuit. Whoever wrote this question may be confused, however, by the way the First Amendment applies with respect to speech about private individuals -- not political candidates. If I take out an ad that says my ex-wise is a thief and a liar, then the First Amendment protects me only if my statements are true, or if I had reasonable cause to think they were true. If I *know* they are false, or should have known, given ordinary standards of care, then she can successfully sue me for slander or libel, depending on whether it is a radio ad or in print. But the situation with "public figures" -- people who have deliberately chosen to place themselves in the public eye, like movie stars who give interviews about their favorite causes, and particularly for political candidates, who have chosen to put their lives in the public eye for consideration for office -- is very different. The First Amendment protects nearly any speech about them, with the exception of speech that serves no other purpose than to incite violence or criminality. So I can readily put out an ad saying Joe Blow, candidate for mayor, bribed the Rotary Club to coerce its members into voting for him, and I'm safe, whether or not it turns out to be true, and whether or not I should have known it was true. About the only thing I can't do is put out an ad that says beause of Joe's bribery, I want everyone to meet up with me in a local park on Saturday and we're going to lynch Joe. That's just incitement to violence, and the FA doesn't protect it. If I were you, I'd probably pick (a), unless you're pretty confident your instructor has a solid understanding of the FA, in which case perhaps (b) is what he wants. And I would complain that this question is badly worded, because it is.
Okay, I didnt learn about the FA, but I thought it was weird question with the answers. Should I just choose B, because if the person is not right, then people would want to know why he lied and he can be protect b/c of the 1st amendment. Thats what i thought would be the best answer even thought i think its A and B. So what should i do?
@Carl_Pham so should i choose B?
i would choose either or
so its both? should i just choose B?
haha, weird Question. Thanks for your help. Im done. Now i have to work on the essay. Thanks so much!!
your welcome :)