Character Assasination v Good Character
The GOP is blamed for an ad that accuses Democrat Harold Ford Jr. or going to a party sponsored by Playboy. The ad is said to be racist because is shows a white blond woman who tells him to call her. My perception when I saw the ad was that Mr. Ford engaged in the same kind of womanizing parting that certain politicians have engaged in for years. The facts of the matter are actually a little different as the party though sponsored by Playboy was celebrating a sports event.
Though deceptive the ad does bring up an important question about good character which is prized in our politicians. Do we want a politician that supports a pornographic organization such as Playboy to have a legislative position and is merely attending an event sponsored by Playboy testimony that a individual supports pornography. You should not be deceived as Playboy does have a reason for sponsoring any event and I doubt it is because they like sports.
This is one of many character assassination ads that are criticized by some individuals. I do not see it the same way. The problem with the ad like many ads political or others is that they present one biased viewpoint. This is something the average person should already be aware of and act to counterbalance by finding out what the whole story is much like I did. Mr. Ford and other politicians have the opportunity to respond or get their story out in one way or another. If the worse case occurs then all that happens is that the other politician wins which is at worse a sad comment on the wackiness of some Americans. I have know of no method that will stop wacky people from voting without infringing on the right to vote of everyone which would do more damage than the disease it is intending to cure.
Some of the defenses of those accused of character assassination otherwise known as defamation of character are as follows. A true statement is not considered to defame the character of the person targeted. This includes any statement made in good faith with a reasonable belief it was true. It also includes opinions since they are not falsifiable. It is also not defamatory if the target consents or has such a poor reputation that they can not be defamed.
As you can see it is difficult to prove that character assassination actually occurred in any of these cases and in politics the courts have left it up to the people to decide since they felt it would do to much damage to the political process for the courts to interfere. I agree with them.
Source 1 is my source about negative ads.
Though deceptive the ad does bring up an important question about good character which is prized in our politicians. Do we want a politician that supports a pornographic organization such as Playboy to have a legislative position and is merely attending an event sponsored by Playboy testimony that a individual supports pornography. You should not be deceived as Playboy does have a reason for sponsoring any event and I doubt it is because they like sports.
This is one of many character assassination ads that are criticized by some individuals. I do not see it the same way. The problem with the ad like many ads political or others is that they present one biased viewpoint. This is something the average person should already be aware of and act to counterbalance by finding out what the whole story is much like I did. Mr. Ford and other politicians have the opportunity to respond or get their story out in one way or another. If the worse case occurs then all that happens is that the other politician wins which is at worse a sad comment on the wackiness of some Americans. I have know of no method that will stop wacky people from voting without infringing on the right to vote of everyone which would do more damage than the disease it is intending to cure.
Some of the defenses of those accused of character assassination otherwise known as defamation of character are as follows. A true statement is not considered to defame the character of the person targeted. This includes any statement made in good faith with a reasonable belief it was true. It also includes opinions since they are not falsifiable. It is also not defamatory if the target consents or has such a poor reputation that they can not be defamed.
As you can see it is difficult to prove that character assassination actually occurred in any of these cases and in politics the courts have left it up to the people to decide since they felt it would do to much damage to the political process for the courts to interfere. I agree with them.
Source 1 is my source about negative ads.
posted by Kerwin | 10:33 PM
3 Comments:
The problem in my view, is that people just assume that every politician is crooked and that is simply false. I happen to know personally politicians who are not corrupt in any sense of the word. These candidates, with moral integrity and good character, are out there. Not having money and backing is no excuse. We are the electorate. WE decide. If we truly want candidates with moral integrity, they are out there. Saying all politicians are crooked is the same as saying all black people have rhythm and all Jews are good with money.
Highboy,
That is a very good point.
The last I knew there was an executive order out by President Regan than no executive personal are supposed to assassinate sitting leaders. It could of been rescinded or a rogue CIA operative or unit could of been responsible. I do not believe we as a country have any problem with Alhaji Mohammadu Maccido. If you know something I don't please let me know.
Post a Comment
<< Home