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

Donald Trump’s Third World presidency

President Donald Trump walks off of Air Force One at Newark Liberty International Airport on Aug. 7, 2026, in Newark, New Jersey.

(Eric Lee/Getty Images/TCA)

Donald Trump’s Third World presidency

In October 1980, then-candidate Ronald Reagan asked voters a very important question: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

It was during the only televised debate he had against incumbent President Jimmy Carter, whose presidency had been marred by one crisis after another, from record-high inflation and rising unemployment, to soaring gas prices and the Iran hostage crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less
FDA Sign at its headquarters in Washington DC. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or USFDA) is a federal agency of the USA.

The FDA’s changing drug approval policies raise concerns about political influence, scientific standards, drug safety, and the future of U.S. pharmaceutical regulation.

JHVEPhoto/Getty Images

FDA Turmoil: Political Interference Threatens Drug Safety Standards

Over the past three decades, drug development in the United States accelerated dramatically. Industry spending increased tenfold between the 1980s and 2019; the number of manufacturers grew; clinical trials became more sophisticated; and new technologies and precision medicines emerged. The Food and Drug Administration kept pace, building processes, standards, and a scientific culture that supported this rapid innovation. It offered pharmaceutical companies a predictable regulatory environment and a level playing field, producing substantial benefits for consumers and researchers alike.

In little more than a year, however, the Trump administration has upended many of these FDA norms. It has tied certain drug approvals to political considerations through a new, opaque program; imposed labeling changes without new scientific evidence; forced out experienced career scientists; replaced respected experts on advisory panels; and promoted unproven therapies. While some of these moves have drawn limited media attention, most have escaped public notice—even though they threaten national health standards and consumer safety. And legal guardrails may be too weak to prevent or limit their effects.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person writing math equations on a chalkboard.

Discover how mathematics can help build fairer democracy through ranked choice voting, proportional representation, better districting, citizens’ assemblies, and AI.

Kenishirotie/Getty Images

American Democracy Needs a Mathematical Revolution

Democracy, we like to think, runs on ideals like freedom, equality, the consent of the governed. But look under the hood and you'll find something less lofty – mathematics.

The idea that democracy depends on math is not new. From ancient Greece onward, votes had to be counted and seats had to be divided. Mathematics even shaped America’s founding. The Declaration of Independence is, at its core, a mathematical document. It opens with axioms—that all people possess certain unalienable rights—and then asserts a theorem: the British rule must end. And because no theorem is complete without a proof, the Declaration supplies one: "To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

Keep ReadingShow less
The GOP isn’t always the best party for conservatives

President Trump has moved the GOP left on abortion right, trade and industrial policy over his two terms.

(Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

The GOP isn’t always the best party for conservatives

I often get asked for my advice on how to vote. I’m the first to concede these requests come from a very niche slice of the electorate — that tiny remnant of people who know who I am, value my opinion and share my exasperation with both parties.

I am going to answer the question. But first let me explain why I don’t like it.

Keep ReadingShow less