Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Can a state government criminalize political statements that are less than 100% truthful?

"After all, where would we be without the knowledge that Democrats are pinko-communist flag-burners who want to tax churches and use the money to fund abortions so they can use the fetal stem cells to create pot-smoking lesbian ATF agents who will steal all the guns and invite the UN to take over America? Voters have to decide whether we’d be better off electing Republicans, those hateful, assault-weapon-wielding maniacs who believe that George Washington and Jesus Christ incorporated the nation after a Gettysburg reenactment and that the only thing wrong with the death penalty is that it isn’t administered quickly enough to secular humanist professors of Chicano studies."

From the amicus brief of the Cato Institute and P.J. O'Rourke in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, the Supreme Court case that asks the question "Can a state government criminalize political statements that are less than 100% truthful?" (PDF).

Click on that PDF link right above here - read the whole brief - it is fabulous!!

P.J. O'Rourke

1 comment:

  1. Indeed the amicus curiae can be funny, ironic, sarcastic, bombastic or any other term you might apply. But I guess they better tell the truth in the state of Ohio. Free speech is dead. Aldous Huxley and George Orwell would be proud...

    Pass me the barf bag. Oh, I better put my finger down my throat so I can make that a 'truthy' statment.

    I am horribly disgusted. Is that the truth? Or am I just being sarcastic, and breaking Ohio law.

    Oh, wait, the Ohio law only pertains to political speech! I'm saved!

    Or not...