ACLU Joins Fight Over Anti-Driehouse Billboards

From Cincinnati.com and Alliance Defense Fund:


1st Congressional District, Election 2010



ACLU joins fight over anti-Driehaus billboards Posted by cweiser October 20th, 2010, 1:18 pm The Ohio ACLU today joined the fight against an Ohio law that potentially makes political speech a crime.

The group filed a “friend of the court” brief on behalf of the Susan B. Anthony List, a Washington D.C.-based anti-abortion group that wanted to put up billboards in Cincinnati. The billboards would have accused Rep. Steve Driehaus of supporting taxpayer-funded abortions, through his vote for President Obama’s health care reform law.





The Susan B. Anthony List's proposed billboards

Driehaus filed a complaint against the group – before the billboards even went up – at the Ohio Elections Commission. He argued the accusation was a “false claim.” That three-man commission found “probable cause” that the group’s claims violate Ohio’s election laws. Another hearing will be held, and the group could face fines, a reprimand, or even criminal penalties.



The anti-abortion group then sued in federal court, saying Ohio’s elections law chill free speech. In fact, the National Right to Life Committee’s chief lobbyist, Douglas Johnson, left a comment on an earlier blog post noting that “it is offensive to the First Amendment to allow an incumbent politician to haul critizens before a government tribunal (with threat of criminal penalties, yet!) because he disagrees with their characterization of his voting record.”



The ACLU agrees in today’s filing, in fact likening the state’s law to the long-condemend “Sedition Act.”



“The right to dissent is foundational to our democracy,” said ACLU of Ohio Legal Director James Hardiman. “By allowing the government to be the final arbitrator of what speech is acceptable, we open the door for those who are critical of elected officials to be silenced.



“Speech is rarely black and white — oftentimes whether a statement is true or false may be a matter of opinion,” Hardiman added. “If the government silences one side of the debate, the public is less informed and others may be fearful of criticizing elected officials. The answer to unpopular speech is not less, but more speech.”



We’ve asked Driehaus’ campaign for a response.



Here’s what the ACLU said in its filing:



The people have an absolute right to criticize their public officials, the government should not be the arbiter of true or false speech and, in any event, the best answer for bad speech is more speech.



The entirety of the statute criminalizes what is, in essence, core political speech. The statute prohibits a wide variety of speech, in an equally wide variety of contexts and media. The only criteria to fall within the prohibition: that someone allege the speech is “false.” It is not the government’s place to pass judgment on what political speech is acceptable, and certainly not in the context of criticizing a public official