1

A lot of debunked claims have been spread about President Obama throughout his presidency; including, but not limited, to:

  1. Obama is a Muslim.
  2. Obama was not born in this country.
  3. Obama is a communist/socialist/monarchist/etc...

While the source of these statements is unclear (defined here as "The Right" for brevity), if the president were to theoretically identify the perpetrator(s) and take them to court, would he have a case--or is all fair in love and politics? An argument could be made that such a tactic might benefit towards the goal of "refocusing" the people away from the tabloid "issues" that seem to dominate a lot of political discussions today.

15
  • 6
    The 'socialist' part isn't even untrue. In the context of U.S. economic policy, Obama is very clearly on the socialist side, as is all of the far-left of the Democratic party. This might not be accurate in the context of Western/Central European economic policy, but it certainly is within the context of U.S. economic policy. At any rate, the answer is no. As the answers explain, it's almost impossible for a politician to sue for slander. Even in the case of Harry Reid making blatently false statements about Romney's taxes which even he knew to be false, it was not litigated.
    – reirab
    Nov 30, 2014 at 7:14
  • 11
    @reirab It might to the left of something or other but it's still not true in every meaningful definition of the word “socialist”. There is a whole range of policies and systems that could be construed as being to the left of the Republican party or the mainstream of American politics but calling all that “socialism” redefines the word beyond recognition or usefulness.
    – Relaxed
    Dec 1, 2014 at 14:52
  • 8
    @reirab you are confusing 'social programs' with 'socialism'. Obama is also hardly 'far left'.
    – user1530
    Dec 1, 2014 at 16:54
  • 4
    @reirab I think I do see your point and probably mostly agree with it but I still object to the terminology. I don't see the point in calling any vaguely left-wing policy “socialism”.
    – Relaxed
    Dec 1, 2014 at 16:55
  • 4
    @reirab feel free to hit me up in chat. I think it's an interesting topic. (FYI, he didn't nationalize the auto manufacturer. It's back in private hands). As for public transit, I think many would agree that's really stretching the term 'socialism'.
    – user1530
    Dec 1, 2014 at 18:08

3 Answers 3

14

There are a few problems with this idea:

  • Free speech protection is very extensive in the US, especially for the press (and many of these rumors have been spread by media outlets). Winning a defamation case is more difficult there than in many European countries for example. It is virtually impossible for public officials (see comments).
  • You can only sue specific people or other legal entities (or if you can sue or press charges against an unnamed person, this person must first be identified before any trial). So you can go after a specific claim and the person who made it but not sue “the right” for spreading a rumor.
  • What's the point? Defamation or libel cases have a large tactical element to them. You can sometimes prevent some information from being published or get some monetary compensation and some people try to sue about things they know to be true simply to make a point but once a claim is out there, you can't undo it or prevent those who are so inclined to believe it. There is very little to gain for anybody (and huge potential for negative press: “Obama-the-tyrant is trying to silence the media”) in trying to resolve this in front of the courts.

Incidentally, I would speculate that any attempt to go in this direction would be litigated for years, adding to the negative publicity and possibly finally making its way to the Supreme Court, which could really go both ways.

10
  • 2
    For public officials, it's even harder to win a libel case: they have to prove that not only is a statement false, but that the speaker actually knew it was false or probably false (the latter is called "reckless disregard for the truth", but goes further than simply being negligent about fact-checking). If you can't prove they don't honestly believe what they're saying, you can't win a libel claim as a public official. It's really pretty much impossible to win such a case.
    – cpast
    Nov 29, 2014 at 1:55
  • 1
    Also, see the Streisand Effect, where trying to suppress something just makes it that much more talked-about.
    – Bobson
    Dec 1, 2014 at 16:13
  • 2
    "has not seemed particularly favorable to Obama in the last few years" - SRSLY? Upholding Obamacare based on a fig list wording isn't favorable?
    – user4012
    Dec 1, 2014 at 20:19
  • 2
    @DVK It's possible the legal case for the constitutionality of the law was not very strong, I haven't looked into the details and I am not a specialist. But from where I sit, far away from the US and with no particular stake in what's going on there, all the emotion around this particular law or Obama's actions in general is difficult to comprehend. So even though the court ultimately upheld the law, nullifying bits and pieces of it looks quite hostile to me.
    – Relaxed
    Dec 1, 2014 at 21:41
  • 2
    Without individual mandate, the law is basically dead in the water since insurance companies would go out of business.
    – user4012
    Dec 2, 2014 at 0:01
10

Leaving aside Obama's personal issues for the moment, historical precedent says that you mostly can't.

Talking *&it about your political opponents is as old as American democracy itself. Or, at least, as old as having 2 competing parties - see the infamous first 2 party elections of 1800:

  • Thomas Jefferson's side critiqued President John Adams by stating

    "a hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

  • Adams' side retorted with high-brow:

    "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

More wonderful accusations of the sort familiar to 2000s ("infidel", "fool", "no god", etc) can be found in this article - there were just too many pearls (with citations) to quote here, so make sure to read them all.

Another good article with examples from other elections is here


For some good historical perspective on legal issues involved: http://www.amazon.com/Protecting-Best-Men-Interpretive-History/dp/0807842907

2
  • Politics are a lot more fun when there's nothing important at stake. That's why I like small government.
    – EvilSnack
    Feb 19, 2019 at 3:03
  • Wasn't that part of the rational behind the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798? I can see why President Adams would sign it into law.
    – LN6595
    Feb 19, 2019 at 3:31
8

Relaxed answered well for the general case, but there's a separate issue with your third point: In the US, you cannot successfully sue for libel over an opinion based on disclosed facts; nor can you sue for hyperbole; nor can you sue for an opinion that's just a pure opinion (and doesn't imply any statements of fact). Libel is restricted to saying a false statement of fact about someone, or implying knowledge of some fact that's actually false. To say that calling Obama a socialist/Marxist/communist/whatever-ist is libel, he'd first have to argue that you're implying that you know some fact (which can be objectively proved or disproved) that you're not mentioning; if a court finds that you're just expressing an opinion of his policies, he's out of luck in the suit.

8
  • Yeah, but with the birther stuff you can more strongly make the case that the people making the claims knew or should have known it was false. You can also make a case about the Muslim stuff, although not quite as strong as the birther claims. Nov 29, 2014 at 5:20
  • 3
    @KeshavSrinivasan This answer is just about the third part: socialism/communism/etc. However, "should have known" isn't enough for a public official: To sustain a libel suit, they need to prove that the defendant actually knew their statements were false, or thought that they were probably false. If the defendant just thought "sounds plausible" and didn't bother to check, even if the fact-checking would be fairly simple, there's no libel. Mere negligence is explicitly not enough to qualify as "reckless disregard for the truth" (and thus as "actual malice")
    – cpast
    Nov 29, 2014 at 5:26
  • OK, but at least for some Birchers, I think you could plausibly argue that there was reckless disregard for the truth. Nov 29, 2014 at 6:23
  • 4
    @KeshavSrinivasan Short of a notarized statement from the Birther saying "I know Obama was born in the US, but..", you'd be fighting an incredibly difficult battle. On the off chance you happened to win the trial, you'd lose again on appeal. Nov 29, 2014 at 8:28
  • @KeshavSrinivasan - (competent legal representation): "Your Honor, while it may seem like almost anyone should have known these statements were false or defamatory, my client is exceptionally ignorant, and did not." Proving malice combined with the absence of plain stupidity as a factor would be fairly impossible to prove, short of having documentation where the defendant basically saying "yeah, I know it's false." That's a tough bar to reach. Sep 5, 2018 at 21:00

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .