Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Judge voids Tennessee law against false ('literally Hitler') claims about candidates

Campaign flyer

A democracy reform group created this leaflet in order to challenge a 1989 statute.

Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws

In a campaign season when civil discourse seems headed to another record low, rhetorical excess has just been given a little extra boost.

For three decades Tennessee has made it a minor crime to put knowingly false statements about a candidate in oppositional campaign literature — one of the more explicit restrictions on political speech in the nation's law books. But last week a state judge said it was a bridge way too far over the First Amendment.

A prominent democracy reform group, Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws, sued and won the right to declare in print something hyperbolic in the extreme: That a Republican state legislator is "literally Hitler," the Nazi fuhrer who died in Germany three-quarters of a century ago.


The point, the group said, was to produce a campaign flyer with obviously false assertions in order to test the law, which it says has been unconstitutionally stifling properly provocative satire and criticism of state officials.

"The framers of our Constitution believed that robust public speech and debate would be essential to self-government," it said. "This law tried to put its thumb on the scale, favoring the very people who enacted it — Tennessee state lawmakers — to the detriment of members of the voting public."

Judge Ellen Hobbs Lyle of Nashville agreed last week, declaring the law a violation of both the state and federal Constitutions. Its main flaw, she said, was that it punished false speech against a candidate but does nothing to rein in lies in support of a politician, "viewpoint dicrimination" not permitted by the First Amendment. She also said government regulators should not be in the business of distinguishing truth from falsity — and that the law bans far more speech than Tennessee could ever punish, besides.

"For emphatic and memorable communication in its campaign materials opposing candidates, the plaintiff uses the literary device of knowingly stating a literally false statement about a candidate in the context of satire, parody and hyperbole," the judge said in her nine-page ruling, and that's one of the Sensible Election Laws group's free speech rights.

The organization was taking on state Rep. Bruce Griffey, a Republican whose first term has been marked by proposing a wave of controversial, conservartuive culture war measures, including a ban on refugee resettlement in Tennessee and a requirement that students use school bathrooms that correspond with their sex at birth. And in January, he proposed a bill that would authorize the state to chemically castrate some people convicted of sex offenses against minors — a policy in place in at least seven states.

The good government group tweeted it would begin distributing its leaflets, which say "Bruce Griffey is LITERALLY HITLER" at the top and, underneath that, "Bruce Griffey: an agenda the Nazis would love."

The 1989 law makes it a misdemeanor punishable by a $50 fine and 10 days in jail to distribute "campaign literature in opposition to any candidate in an election" if any "statement charge, allegation, or other matter contained therein with respect to such candidate is false." It makes no exceptions for satire, hyperbole or parody.

The state attorney general's office has not announced whether it will appeal.

Griffey is solidly favored to win a second term in November in a rural district west of Nashville.


Read More

U.S. Rep. Young Kim (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. Young Kim (R-CA) speaks during a news conference in front of the U.S. Capitol to commemorate the 36th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre on June 4, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Kim removed references to Trump and his “America First” agenda from her campaign site and materials.

(Alex Wong/Getty Images/TNS)

GOP candidates are rushing to rebrand before November’s midterms

“If you want to know what a politician is up to, watch his feet, not his mouth,” historian Marvin Meyers wrote in his magisterial “The Jacksonian Persuasion” in 1957.

It’s still good advice. In private conversations, Republicans are talking a big game about how they’re not worried about November’s midterms, according to several informed sources I’ve talked to. But it’s not just in private. “Today, I don’t think there will be a blue wave at all,” White House Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair told the Free Press earlier this month. Blair is the man tasked with overseeing the midterms for President Trump’s MAGA Inc. super-PAC.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Close up of white ballot box with American flag in the background

Close up of white ballot box with American flag in the background during US Midterm Congressional Elections 2026.

Getty Images

National Security Leaders Sound Alarm on Armed Election Deployments

With Election Day approaching, concerns continue to mount over the possibility that the Trump administration could deploy armed federal agents to election sites. Democratic leaders, the NAACP, and the American Civil Liberties Union have already raised alarms, filing lawsuits after senior administration officials repeatedly refused to rule out sending armed federal agents or immigration officers to polling places during the 2026 midterm elections.

A Warning from National Security Leaders

On September 14th, National Security Leaders for America (NSL4A)—a nonpartisan network of more than 1,600 senior national security professionals, including retired admirals, generals, senior enlisted leaders, intelligence officers, diplomats, and civilian service officials—issued an unusually direct call to action. They urged state attorneys general to prepare now to seek emergency injunctive relief if the federal government takes identifiable steps toward deploying uniformed military forces or massed armed federal law enforcement personnel into major American cities in connection with the November elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Robot Holding a Resume Doing HR Work Vector Illustration

AI résumé screening can filter out qualified candidates before a human ever looks. Here's why transparency and human oversight in hiring matter.

nicoletaionescu/Getty Images

When AI Screens the Resume, Who Gets a Fair Shot at Work?

A job seeker can spend hours tailoring a résumé, checking qualifications and writing a thoughtful application, believing the next step will be a person deciding whether to schedule an interview.

Increasingly, that assumption may be wrong.

Keep ReadingShow less