What people are saying about Supreme Court ruling on Susan B. Anthony List.
Los Angeles Times, editorial: "In more than a dozen states, it can be a criminal offense to make a false statement about a candidate for public office. But such laws are unnecessary, and open to abuse. On Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision that could be the first step in doing away with them. The justices ruled in favor of the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group that wants to challenge an Ohio law making it a crime to utter a false statement 'concerning the voting record of a candidate or public official.'"
The New York Sun, editorial: "It would, though, be premature to celebrate too uproariously the court's decision. For what this case involved was not whether the Susan B. Anthony List had violated the law. Or whether the law is unconstitutional. This was about merely whether the Susan B. Anthony List can get into court to argue that the law is unconstitutional."
Casey Mattox, The Federalist: "The point is not that the government should punish these abortion advocates or prohibit them from speaking. The First Amendment forbids government from acting as the arbiter of truth on matters of public debate. And that's exactly the point. SBA List is powerless to vindicate its constitutionally protected freedoms and ensure that the marketplace for debate is free if incumbent politicians can prevent them or anyone else from exposing the truth and then avoid adjudication of this egregious First Amendment violation."
Sally Kohn, The Daily Beast: "To even file this lawsuit in the first place, the Susan B. Anthony List had to admit it lied. The lying wasn't an accident or even a momentary lapse in good judgment. It was conscious and deliberate. The ultimate constitutionality of the Ohio false statement law is still up in the air, but what's clear is that a right-wing organization put lying at the center of its campaign strategy."
Garrett Epps, The Atlantic: "The case seemed ... to concern the right to lie about politics. As properly decided by the court, however, it only had to do with the abstruse doctrine of 'standing to sue,' which requires a plaintiff challenging a law to show an 'actual injury,' not just a political objection to the law. ... It's pretty clear the law itself and others like it violate the First Amendment. ... The court ordered the case back to the lower courts, however, for full argument of the constitutional question."