Candidates lie — What else is new?

The Washington Supreme Court ruled correctly last week in the "right to lie" case. Not that it is right for political candidates to lie, or that nothing can be done about a lie. It means that in a free country, it's not the government's job to police the speech of candidates for office.

The law forbade a candidate from telling a lie, with malicious intent, about an opponent. But who determines which statements are lies, and which intents are malicious? The law empowered the Public Disclosure Commission to do those things and to select the penalty. The PDC's members are appointed by the governor. Wrote Justice Jim Johnson, "When this same governor seeks re-election, the governor's own appointees will decide whether to sanction the speech of campaign opponents."

The case did not touch the law of libel and slander, which punishes lies that injure someone's reputation. The law of libel and slander is applied by a court, and it protects everyone.

The law thrown out last week, which penalized lies that did not injure anyone's reputation, was applied by a commission, and protected only candidates for public office. If it had been written to protect the public, it would have forbidden candidates to lie about themselves — and it didn't. Candidates have always been free to lie about themselves, and have often done so shamelessly.

Who, then, shall protect the public from lies? This newspaper, for one. Other newspapers, magazines, broadcasters, cable stations, bloggers, pamphleteers and speakers, for others.

Also, the people may protect themselves, by taking political statements with a grain of salt. Far better for them to do it than to rely on government.