An unsuccessful state Senate candidate plans to appeal a judge’s ruling that, under the First Amendment, an out-of-state political action committee was entitled to use false statements to attack him in political ads.

U.S. District Court Judge D. Brock Hornby dismissed a libel lawsuit brought by James Schatz of Blue Hill, one of five Democratic candidates who were targeted in a last-minute blitz of negative campaigning by the Virginia-based Republican State Leadership Committee.

Hornby acknowledged that statements the political action committee made about Schatz were false and that they were used to mislead voters about his positions. But the judge said such attacks are protected under the Constitution’s First Amendment right of freedom of speech.

“Elections, unsurprisingly, are often rough-and-tumble events. But candidates become justifiably outraged when they are falsely accused, especially when the close date of the election prevents an effective rebuttal, and especially when the accusation is made not even by the opponent but by relatively anonymous outsiders,” Hornby wrote.

“Nevertheless, in the service of robust public discourse, the First Amendment protects statements made in a campaign even if they turn out to be false — unless the speaker knows the statements are false, or makes them with reckless disregard for their truth,” he said.

Neither scenario was shown in the case, Hornby said.

Schatz said he was surprised and disappointed by the judge’s ruling and plans to appeal it to the federal appeals court in Boston.

“It just kind of felt like an extension of the campaign assault,” Schatz said. “I felt it further lowered the standard that should be met during any kind of discourse, political or otherwise.”

The case stems from November’s election, when the Republican State Leadership Committee spent $400,000 targeting Democrats in five state Senate races. All were defeated, which helped Republicans secure a Senate majority.

The fliers that were funded by the group said that Schatz, a state representative and Blue Hill selectman, had voted to cancel his town’s fireworks display and then spent the money on a self-serving political campaign, said his lawyer, Barry Mills.

Schatz actually voted against canceling fireworks in 2009. And it was town meeting voters, the previous year, who approved spending money on a political campaign, to fight the school consolidation law that was proposed at the time.

Schatz, 71, said he worked hard to build a reputation of being trustworthy, which he claims the attack ads tarnished — publicly casting him in a false light with actual malice, the standard for libel.

The group’s lawyers maintained that information in the ads was drawn from newspaper articles. They said the group was under no obligation to research his positions more completely, nor is there anything illegal about juxtaposing two separate spending issues to, in their view, show a candidate’s priorities.

The judge said Schatz did not demonstrate that the group knew its statements were probably false.

Staff Writer David Hench can be contacted at 791-6327 or at:

dhench@pressherald.com

 

Copy the Story Link