I don’t understand how such a law is enforceable.
So an outright falsehood is grounds for a lawsuit? Ok, what constitutes proof something is false. For example, Candidate A. claims Senate bill X. will do such and so. His source is the Heritage Foundation. His opponent, Candidate B. claims it will do no such thing. His source is the Center for American Progress. Who decides which version is true and which isn’t?
“Death panels” was a good example. No one questioned that the bill would lead to some sort of government rationed care, yet look how noisily “death panels” was condemned as a “lie,” even thought it had ample basis in fact.
Even if it’s a question of something more clear cut like Brown’s complaint here, suppose he loses Tuesday. Is he going to call for a new election since voters were lied to and the process was “corrupted?” If not, what happens to Coakley? Nothing? Then why bother having the law in the first place?
I’m just not following how this law is workable. I hate losing elections to lies as much as anyone, but limiting political freedom is speech is rarely a good idea.
Beside the point. The objective isn't to win a court case, the objective is to exploit the news media to expose the lie.
The rats understand this sorta technique.
The news reports are leaving out the last paragraph of MGL56.42:
Whoever knowingly violates any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months.
It's a criminal offense, not merely grounds for a lawsuit. A criminal jury decides which version is true and which isn't, regardless of who wins on Tuesday.