Attack Ads

[PointOfViewGun]

As the American presidential race gets more heated I notice more and more attacks ads on TV. Almost all are made by distorting facts and taking things out of context. It appears as if they're exclusive to American political tactics, at least compared to Turkey. I'm not sure if it happens in other countries as well. They're practically defamation and should not be allowed in my opinion.

What are your thoughts on attack ads? Are you ok with them or would you like them to be banned?

[Enemy of the State]

Attack ads are great if they don't focus on trivial matters. This is an example of a great recent attack ad. It shows what a corrupt liar and hypocrite Gingrich really is. It doesn't touch the affairs and other morally questionable acts Gingrich has commited, even though it could, it would serve to prove what a hypocrite the man really is.

[PointOfViewGun]

Attack ads are great if they don't focus on trivial matters. This is an example of a great recent attack ad. It shows what a corrupt liar and hypocrite Gingrich really is. It doesn't touch the affairs and other morally questionable acts Gingrich has commited, even though it could, it would serve to prove what a hypocrite the man really is.

That one is one of the better prepared ones. However, not all are accurate like that and not even everything in that ad is accurate.

I can't find the video but one ad has Obama talking about economy but the ad doesn't have the beginning of the sentence which starts "McCain said..."

Found it:

[Eofor]

As the American presidential race gets more heated I notice more and more attacks ads on TV. Almost all are made by distorting facts and taking things out of context. It appears as if they're exclusive to American political tactics, at least compared to Turkey. I'm not sure if it happens in other countries as well. They're practically defamation and should not be allowed in my opinion.

What are your thoughts on attack ads? Are you ok with them or would you like them to be banned?

In the Canadian federal elections back in May the Tories used a lot of attack ads.
I personally think they should be banned. It might make politicians think of how to make themselves look good rather than just making their opponents look bad.

[Thorn777]

Like American politics is about accuracy...not even in the slightest

[Søren]

Banning attack ads would be a terrible blow to rights of freedom of speech, and of the press, set out in the First Amendment. This is a a classic example of an authoritarian suggestion that might be benevolently intended, but would have the effect of constricting free democratic expression. Criticism of political candidates is an essential freedom; there's no justification for abridging that right just because it's sometimes misused.

[LSJ]

Attack ads are fine if they are honest. I've seen a lot of dishonest attack ads aimed at Obama, generally involving misattributing quotes to him or taking things completely out of context. Those kinds of ads are wrong because they are built on lies and disinformation. Good attack ads are ones that show how a candidate has changed his policies depending on how the wind blows, that the candidate did not follow through on a promise, or that the person has been undemocratic by acting in the interests of corporations against the will of his constituents. Those kind of ads are beneficial because they provide useful information when making a decision on election day. Propaganda should be done with honesty - use facts that play against your opponents.

[PointOfViewGun]

Banning attack ads would be a terrible blow to rights of freedom of speech, and of the press, set out in the First Amendment. This is a a classic example of an authoritarian suggestion that might be benevolently intended, but would have the effect of constricting free democratic expression. Criticism of political candidates is an essential freedom; there's no justification for abridging that right just because it's sometimes misused.

We're not talking about criticism of a candidate alone. We're talking about attack ads. Banning them doesn't mean we want to ban criticism. This is not an issue of freedom of speech at all.

[Admiral Piett]

Banning attack ads would be a terrible blow to rights of freedom of speech, and of the press, set out in the First Amendment. This is a a classic example of an authoritarian suggestion that might be benevolently intended, but would have the effect of constricting free democratic expression. Criticism of political candidates is an essential freedom; there's no justification for abridging that right just because it's sometimes misused.

I think there can be a fine-line here. For the most part, I agree with you, but I think that defamation of character should come into play more in suits against these type of ads. Like this one, which was absolutely ridiculous:

[43rdFoot]

Attacking criticism is old as dirt, and has been a defining part of American political systems since the origins of independent politics. You just kinda have to deal with it.

[Mr. Scott]

As the American presidential race gets more heated I notice more and more attacks ads on TV. Almost all are made by distorting facts and taking things out of context. It appears as if they're exclusive to American political tactics, at least compared to Turkey. I'm not sure if it happens in other countries as well. They're practically defamation and should not be allowed in my opinion.

What are your thoughts on attack ads? Are you ok with them or would you like them to be banned?

Umm infringement on freedom of the press and speech much?

Who defines "attack"? Its such an arbitrary definition. And what if a candidate truly has something scandalous about them? Is the opposition restricted from bringing this to light?

[xcorps]

As the American presidential race gets more heated I notice more and more attacks ads on TV. Almost all are made by distorting facts and taking things out of context. It appears as if they're exclusive to American political tactics, at least compared to Turkey. I'm not sure if it happens in other countries as well. They're practically defamation and should not be allowed in my opinion.

What are your thoughts on attack ads? Are you ok with them or would you like them to be banned?

I despise attack ads. They are counter productive and do not present a clear, cogent, refined message of what the candidate believes or what his/her policy positions are. I will never understand the concept of "vote for me because the other guy sucks". It's my opinion that any candidate for office that runs an attack ad should be banned from public life forever. It's ok to present an ad that attacks an issue, but not the candidate.

You can't actually ban the ads themselves. Free Speech.

We're not talking about criticism of a candidate alone. We're talking about attack ads. Banning them doesn't mean we want to ban criticism. This is not an issue of freedom of speech at all.

Banning an ad that is critical of a person is banning criticism.

[PointOfViewGun]

Umm infringement on freedom of the press and speech much?

Who defines "attack"? Its such an arbitrary definition. And what if a candidate truly has something scandalous about them? Is the opposition restricted from bringing this to light?

I despise attack ads. They are counter productive and do not present a clear, cogent, refined message of what the candidate believes or what his/her policy positions are. I will never understand the concept of "vote for me because the other guy sucks". It's my opinion that any candidate for office that runs an attack ad should be banned from public life forever. It's ok to present an ad that attacks an issue, but not the candidate.

You can't actually ban the ads themselves. Free Speech.

Banning an ad that is critical of a person is banning criticism.

It's not a matter of freedom of speech. It is not banning criticism. It's only a ban on use of advertisement to personally attack a candidate. It doesn't stop a candidate from talking about an other candidate in a debate or in an interview or practically anywhere else. Similar to how every game has it's rules. Doesn't mean it's a violation of freedom of speech.

[justicar5]

I despise attack ads. They are counter productive and do not present a clear, cogent, refined message of what the candidate believes or what his/her policy positions are. I will never understand the concept of "vote for me because the other guy sucks". It's my opinion that any candidate for office that runs an attack ad should be banned from public life forever. It's ok to present an ad that attacks an issue, but not the candidate.

You can't actually ban the ads themselves. Free Speech.




Banning an ad that is critical of a person is banning criticism.

Attack ads are by definition taking things out of context, twisting meaning, using weasel words etc. If you can prove a scandal, or someone really did say something extremely stupid, that;s criticism, using part quotes to totally change the meaning? That's attack.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Maybe elections shouldn't be as often. Every 8 years instead of 4. That would stop politicians giving their voters short-term gain while passing long-term pain to their successors.

[Mr. Scott]

Maybe elections shouldn't be as often. Every 8 years instead of 4. That would stop politicians giving their voters short-term gain while passing long-term pain to their successors.

But it would also mean that the legislative process would lag significantly behind the will of the people.

It'd also result in a far less dynamic legislative process. If you got a dead-lock it could last for several years, especially given the level of partisanship the US has.

I say eliminate the direct election of the president and instead have them be elected by the house. This way the position of president is not gained through populism or non-political things (who looks better and etc...)

[bushbush]

.

I say eliminate the direct election of the president and instead have them be elected by the house. This way the position of president is not gained through populism or non-political things (who looks better and etc...)

That will just make presidency a prize of factional politics at the wills of party bosses. Look at Japan, where PM is chosen by the parliament. Part of the reason why Japan has 5 PMs in 4 years is because of factional politics competing.

[Ulyaoth]

But it would also mean that the legislative process would lag significantly behind the will of the people.

It'd also result in a far less dynamic legislative process. If you got a dead-lock it could last for several years, especially given the level of partisanship the US has.

I say eliminate the direct election of the president and instead have them be elected by the house. This way the position of president is not gained through populism or non-political things (who looks better and etc...)

Then you'd get things like how badly the democrats just lost last election which was a large part due to intense hatred of Pelosi. You'd have people voting out people they may like just because their party supports a leader they hate.

[AqD]

Maybe elections shouldn't be as often. Every 8 years instead of 4. That would stop politicians giving their voters short-term gain while passing long-term pain to their successors.

Under the assumption that politicians do make gains for people

[StealthFox]

There are ways of discouraging attack ads without infringing on free speech; you just have to be creative. Perhaps pass an ethics law saying that campaign money can't be used on attack ads. So, if a candidate wants to go out and attack the opposition by taking things out of context and playing loose with the facts they have to use their own money or use a third party to do it. Of course this won't stop or ban attack ads, but discourage them and make it much less acceptable to use them.