Posted on 08/11/2018 7:21:45 AM PDT by TBP
Former NAACP president and current Maryland gubernatorial candidate Ben Jealous is demanding that television stations stop airing a commercial from his political opponent.
“Evidence to the controversy”
An attorney representing the Ben Jealous campaign sent a letter to four television stations telling them to pull down a political ad from incumbent Governor Larry Hogan.
“The Republican Governor’s Association in this advertisement uses selective editing techniques to make the false claim that Mr. Jealous is a socialist, despite clear and repeated evidence to the controversy,” wrote James Temple Jr., which likely meant to say “evidence to the contrary.”
Former NAACP president and current Maryland gubernatorial candidate Ben Jealous is demanding that television stations stop airing a commercial from his political opponent.
“Evidence to the controversy”
An attorney representing the Ben Jealous campaign sent a letter to four television stations telling them to pull down a political ad from incumbent Governor Larry Hogan.
“The Republican Governor’s Association in this advertisement uses selective editing techniques to make the false claim that Mr. Jealous is a socialist, despite clear and repeated evidence to the controversy,” wrote James Temple Jr., which likely meant to say “evidence to the contrary.”
“The advertisement deceptively edits an interview Mr. Jealous gave MSNBC on June 27, 2018 to include only the words ‘go ahead, call me a socialist.’ However, Mr. Jealous’ full quote makes it abundantly clear that he is no such thing,” the letter explained, “as Mr. Jealous actually said, ‘go ahead call me a socialist. It doesn’t change the fact that I’m a a venture capitalist.'”
“Additionally, at another point in this same interview, Mr. Jealous unequivocally states that he is a venture capitalist,” he adds.
“The TV stations we believe have a responsibility both legally and ethically to stop this kind of false advertising,” said Temple Jr. to WJZ-TV in an interview about the demand.
Political analyst Dr. Mileah Kromer of Goucher College told WJZ-TV that the kind of editing employed by the RGA was pretty standard practice in political campaigns.
“Once it’s in the public domain it can wind up in a political ad,” Kromer said.
Jealous has also been criticized for a foul-mouthed outburst he had at a reporter who asked him to comment on the accusation from his political opponent that he was a socialist.
“Are you f***ing kidding me?!” exclaimed Jealous at the surprised reporter.
WJZ said in their report on Jealous’ demands that they will continue running the political ad.
Hogan has a 14 point advantage in the Real Clear Politics average of polling for this election.
They can’t campaign on truth and reality.
Political ad content is pretty much untouchable and I think all broadcast media have to air all of them if they air any at all(I might be wrong on the latter point).
I have heard of defamation suits being filed in the past but can’t recall any being successful.
apparently ol’ Ben is living up to his last name ...
I thought Socialism was GOOD, at least to Leftists. Why is Jealous jealous?
what policies does he advocate for the State vs. his own personal wealth portfolio?
Guess I’ll be the contrarian. If the ad is edited to depict Jealous saying something completely different than what he actually said, I think the ad is wrong and dishonest. Maybe the stations don’t pull it, but Jealous can use the truth in his own ads to show his opponent is dishonest. This is the kind of thing that makes politics so sleezy. It’s like attacking a politician for voting for some minor item that was buried in a much larger bill that had to be passed.
The Communications Act and the FCC’s rules prohibit broadcasters from censoring political candidates’ ads in any way if those ads are “uses”. In this context, a “use” is an ad, sponsored by a legally qualified candidate or the candidate’s campaign committee, that includes a recognizable likeness or image of the candidate. The candidate may be seeking a federal office or a state or local office. The ad buy may be the first one run by a candidate for that particular office, or it may be bought by a candidate taking advantage of the “equal opportunity” requirement created by the fact that the candidate’s opponent aired a “use” already. If it’s a political “use”, broadcasters can’t touch the content.
But there are a couple of very important caveats:
First, the “no censorship” prohibition applies only to “uses”. That still leaves a wide array of political ads which can legally be censored – or even rejected – because of their content. Ads by non-candidate third parties like PACs, labor unions, and other advocacy groups are not “uses”, even though they may resemble them in look and content. If a spot is not a “use”, a broadcaster who airs it is not necessarily immune from liability for any defamation, infringement, etc., occurring in the spot. That means that, before accepting a non-“use” political spot for broadcast, station personnel should take a very careful look at the spot’s content and be prepared to insist on changes – or even to reject it – if it gives rise to serious concerns.
And second, what if the station streams candidate ads over the Internet? The “no censorship” prohibition appears in Section 315(a) of the Communications Act, which deals only with broadcasting. Since Section 315(a) says nothing about non-broadcast media, it appears that that “no censorship” provision would not apply to ads distributed on the Internet – and if the “no censorship” provision does not apply, then logically such non-broadcast distribution would not enjoy the immunity otherwise accorded to broadcast of the ads.
Always seems to be a loophole in about everything. doesn’t it?
rwood
I thought all democrats at the NAACP were socialist.
I thought all democrats at the NAACP were socialist.
In that socialism, in practice, degrades quickly into a type of crony capitalism, the statement, “I’m a socialist; I’m a venture capitalist,” is not inherently contradictory.
MD ping.
OK, I guess the one quote is misleading.
But, I love that ad. Apparently can’t contest (contrary, anyone?) the rest of its points.
Never mind how can we have a name like “jealous”? Actually it fits. And he’s another half-black choosing his black side and proving only black privilege exists.
Thanks for the info — I figured the internet streaming thing would be like the mass censorship Conservatives and Republicans are seeing now on all social media.
Iy does appear the ads in the article being called on for censorship fall pretty center in the “use” definition you provided though.
We have a VERY thin and tenuous Free Speech thread for conservative voices and candidates. But it is getting thinner by the moment as the Left goes all out in its pursuit of complete fascism.
I ‘like’ the version of
The two candidates met for a debate, shook hands, OPENLY declared it would be a no mud slinging campaign, they would focus on the issues only and leave the ‘trash’ alone.
Speaker # 1 stood up and said he would follow to the letter and hope to engage the D opponent in a clean race.
Speaker #2 stood up and also said he would follow to the letter and, since he was, he would here and now promise to NOT bring up the fact his R opponent was under investigation by his office for kickbacks, or wouldn’t mention his affair with his secretary or wouldn’t mention the fact he had a tryst with a pizza delivery guy etc etc etc
Where there is a will, there is a way to get out your point.
https://youtu.be/ZW3nvZzHfT8
Thats the 30 second ad. The “go ahead and call me a socialist...” clip is played twice. Its very obvious he was in mid statenent when clip ends, however what the rest of his statement was is left ambigous in the ad, and they present other claims that suggest he leans socialist at least.
“If the ad is edited to depict Jealous saying something completely different than what he actually said, I think the ad is wrong and dishonest.”
A wretched democrat bitching about being taken out of context or lied about? They perfected the technique!
Jealous is right. He’s not a Socialist. He’d have to move far to the right to be a Socialist. He’s a Stalinist.
If the shoe fits wear it!
Out of context quotes is duplicity, the TV ads should be followed by an opposition ad playing the entire sound bite.
Then say why vote for a Republican who is willing to lie to your face.
Instant Democrat win.
But lawyering up is both expensive and stupid. Why not be open and honest to the voters instead of a power play?
Trust a Democrat to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Benny is having a problem with the heat. ROTFL. Shut my opponent up! He’s eating my lunch. You tell ‘em Benny!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.