The winning candidate in a local city election here (Britain) is on trial. She is accused of running a smear campaign against the losing candidate. She would go to voters during door- to- door canvassing and hint or state that the other candidate, a homosexual man with a Malaysian partner, was a paedophile. She allegedly told one that her opponent "is a paedophile who has slept with Thai boys under the age of 15".Another man reported "There was a suggestion that he had a leaning towards young oriental boys.I was quite shocked really...both by the allegation and the fact that she was making it".

Her opponent lost the election by 28 votes. Towards the end of his campaign he found that some voters were hostile, inter alia saying " I know all about you" and slamming their front door in his face.

What laws to prevent such tactics are there in the US?

This woman is being prosecuted under the Representation of the People Act 1983 for " making false statements about another candidate to gain an electoral advantage".

'Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.

Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign...' www.boston.com

It seems there wasn't any legal recourse here; the smears were, for the most part, made anonymously. (Not only dishonest but cowardly - but then, what else would you expect from Dubya?)

Though the wheels of justice turn too slowly here for any resolution pior to an election, would this not fall under defamation statutes?

Certainly seems to qualify as slander.

quote:

Originally posted by aminator2002:
Certainly seems to qualify as slander.

And, fortunately, one actionable without proof of loss: it suggests that a crime has been committed by the other candidate. Unlike libel, where the defamatory statement is in some permanent form, or broadcast, slander normally requires the claimant to show some pecuniary loss. However slanders impugning the chastity of a woman (Slander of Women Act 1891: who says the Victorians weren't feminists? ) , imputing a crime or calculated to disparage someone's reputation in their trade, profession or calling are actionable per se.

Defamation cases do not qualify for Legal Aid so the claimant would need legal insurance or be in good funds or have a helpful lawyer (I'm not sure whether 'no win no fee' is allowed in defamation cases).

Problem is likely to be that the defendant is a 'woman of straw' and not worth suing, save to get an apology as part of any settlement.

He's best served by this woman being convicted and jailed. Unsurprisingly, that's her defence: that he's a sore loser conducting a conspiracy to ensure that she and her party are despised by the electorate as smearing crooks and lose the seat and future elections

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure some recently enacted election laws (evolving from the infamous "Swift Boat" ads contra Kerry), requiring political ads to be true, were struck down by the courts. In other words, it's ok to say pretty much anything about a political opponent. And, of course, it will continue. Negative ads, truth being irrelevant, work.

quote:

Originally posted by sid1114:
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure some recently enacted election laws (evolving from the infamous "Swift Boat" ads contra Kerry), requiring political ads to be true, were struck down by the courts. In other words, it's ok to say pretty much anything about a political opponent. And, of course, it will continue. Negative ads, truth being irrelevant, work.

Ah, freedom of speech, eh? Maybe words used ("published") in an election in the US are thought of as privileged, like defamatory words in Parliament or Congress (and so the speaker of them is protected from defamation laws ) We thought of that possibility. Our Defamation Act says that ' a defamatory statement published by or on behalf of a candidate shall not be deemed to be published on a privileged occasion on the ground that it is material to a question in issue in the election, whether or not the person by whom it is published is entitled to vote in the election'.The instant remedy would be an injunction to stop repetition of the defamatory statement and try to force a retraction.

In practice our parties are very quick to correct any proven errors of fact given in their campaigns. (They usually make some mealy- mouthed statement that they've been misunderstood and would, on reflection, have made their statement in different words or figures. ).That doesn't stop them spinning or cherry- picking the facts they do have, as well as interpreting anything how they will

The tightness of our rules on campaign expenditure and, particularly, on time allowed on television, as well as the election law above and defamation law, mean that a 'swift boat' campaign would not happen here. The parties can only have a limited time on television and radio, fixed by law.Equal time is allotted to for each big party,less for smaller ones, and no other TV or radio advertising is allowed.Each party makes programmes, like long advertisements or short propaganda films ("party political broadcasts"),instead.