Letter: Office seekers need recourse

Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2002 | 8:49 a.m.

In announcing its lawsuit against the Ethics Commission for penalizing lies by political candidates, the ACLU attorney stated, "people have a right to appear in court, not before a political body."

Unfortunately, that is what the public believes. The voters will accept any lie if it is not challenged by a lawsuit.

The fact is, however, that since N.R.S. 41.635-41.670 was passed by the 1997 Nevada legislature, a defamed candidate does not have recourse to the courts. The law says that any "good faith" communication is immune from liability. It also defines "good faith" as "any communication that is aimed at procuring ... electoral action ..."

Therefore, Nevada law allows any blatant lie uttered by one candidate against another if it is for the purpose of winning an election. The law doesn't consider whether or not the statement is true, only whether it is for the purpose of winning. In fact, the law provides that the candidate who is defamed can be severely fined for even bringing the action in the courts.

The current media bandwagon (joined by the ACLU) to eliminate the punitive powers of the Ethics Commission is only valid if we can provide other recourse for victims of vicious defamation who happen to be political candidates. To date we have no such recourse.

MEL LIPMAN