It isn't about the right to lie or to tell the truth, the point of the DA and law enforcement being involved is to put a chill on those they disagree with. It is using the coercive power of government officials to stifle speech THEY deem to be a lie or misrepresentation of their candidate's position and prevent those ads from going on the air, or pulling down the ads that they believe are misrepresentations.

Supporters of a politician tend to believe in their candidate and will see the best in them and what's to prevent them from seeing a negative but basically true ad as being a lie? And the whole point of this is not to actually weed out the lies (misrepresentations are much more common and are not exactly libelous) but to scare organizations into being less negative in their ads since the organizations will know if they go too negative the ad might get investigated. It is not a threat and it is not enforcable, it is a bluff and one that will certainly be called since if an ad is effectively banned by these people it will become a huge story and the ad will be played hundreds of times for free. Bad politics (since it helps their opponents and makes them look bad, even if we disagree on the extent to which they look bad) and bad policy (since trying to restrict someone's free speech is an inherently bad idea). Also, there are laws for prosecuting libel and slander and a big enough settlement against some of these organizations would prevent them from being able to mount another campaign and I wonder why some of these organizations haven't been sued if they are actually commiting libel.

Also, if George W. does something and you don't like it, and you (rightly) complain about it for eight years, it does not look good when democrats turn around and do something that is similar in tone. If it's wrong when the other guy does it, then it would be wrong to do it yourself, because it's wrong.

" it is a bluff and one that will certainly be called since if an ad is effectively banned by these people it will become a huge story and the ad will be played hundreds of times for free."

Um, if an ad is succesfully prosecuted as libel, then any broadcasting organization that ran the ad would be guilty of knowingly spreading libelous statements about the candidate. They would have to have a context that made it absolutely clear that the ad was a lie in order to show it.

Oh, sure, as long as the ad is not proven to be libelous, they might get away with it, but if it is, then any news media or broadcaster that aired it might be on the hook for libel charges as well. Depending on how fine a line they tread. They certainly can't claim that they were ignorant of the possibility that it was libel.

Some of what I've heard about in these "ads" is so obviously over the line that it's ridiculous. Now, Obama (or his legal representatives) have every right to prosecute those who make libelous ads. Once a libelous ad has been aired, it is appropriate to send cease and desist notices, at the same time as they file their legal claims (but only if a legal claim is being made.) If only to make sure that the companies that might broadcast the ads are made aware of their legal exposure to a similar libel suit.

The way a libel suit works is that Obama has to provide a statement under oath that the claims being made against him are false. Just like the people who are responsible for the ads must make assertions under oath that the claims are true.

(Remember how Al Franken called Bill O'Reilly a liar, O'Reilly got all huffy and swore to sue him for libel and the Judge laughed the case out of court when O'Reilly refused to make the required assertion under oath that he hadn't lied about the matter in question?  I'd think if the claims made against Obama were even remotely credible the GOP would be salivating at the thought of Obama or his handlers wimping out in front of a judge and refusing to swear under oath that this crap was a lie).

If the ads are libelous, then they should be prosecuted and taken off the air. Libel is not protected speech, and it has no place in a presidential campaign or anywhere else.

What you have to remember is just how risky this is for Obama. If he asserts the falsehood of these claims under oath (and if the claims are made against him personally, then he personally has to assert their falsehood.) and they are found to be true, he is at risk for perjury charges and  his opponent and the news media can repeat the accusations freely as established fact.

There is no upside for Obama in making libel claims in a court of law against these ads unless they are in fact libelous. 

Wow.  Even right wing pollsters like Rasmussen and FOX have Obama with a growing lead.

How can they not?  McCain's blunderous stunt, Letterman's vitriol and in the end, Obama took home that debate. 

At this point, McCain better single handedly capture OBL in October...

"For anyone that believes in the First Ammendment, that should scare the hell out of you."

----

I'd say those who feel strongly about freedom of speech have been jaded by the Bush Administration and his fascist-minded apologists.

And that's a defense for what Obama is doing?  Wow.

Obama's campaign is on a roll...

Since I have actually worked an Obama event, they will not allow any signs because of security concerns and signs block the view of others that are there.

Because signs on walls block views?  The view of bricks, mortar and paint?

http://www.inquisitr.com/4084/this-woman-votes/

Starts off insane and doesn't let up.  Stick around for the massive plot twist at 1:20.

"Since I have actually worked an Obama event, they will not allow any signs because of security concerns..."

Really?  I wonder what the Secret Service says?
"But a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service, responsible for protecting presidential candidates, says that the service has no objection to signs at rallies, provided that no “part of the sign could be used as a weapon”–e.g., a heavy metal pole or a sharpened stick"

Starts off insane and doesn't let up.  Stick around for the massive plot twist at 1:20.

She's hysterical!  Doesn't want to vote for the "cut and runners" so she voted for Hillary -- teeheehee...