Let the Voters Decide

In opening its cable television airwaves to campaign videos from City Council candidates, Thousand Oaks has opened a can of wiggly worms indeed. A proposal by Councilman Andy Fox to prohibit candidates from criticizing others, or even from making personal attacks, offers no solution.

It does, however, illustrate the dilemma.

Individual voters can reject negative campaigning and shun candidates who resort to personal attacks, but city officials should not be empowered to decide which ads fit that description. Common sense suggests that candidates rightly need to point out the perceived shortcomings of their opponents, and the 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech is extremely broad.

But it is not absolute.

City officials owe it to their taxpayers not to get suckered into a libel suit. Under current libel law, certain types of defamatory statements hold legal peril not only for the person who makes them but also for the mass medium that conveys them to the world. That explains why some letters to the editor never get into print--and why the city of Thousand Oaks cannot simply grant absolute freedom to anyone to say whatever they like about whomever they don’t like.

It is commendable that the city would make available free time on TOTV for prerecorded statements by candidates. We support this attempt to increase voters’ opportunity to learn about candidates while reducing the need for candidates to raise huge sums for advertising. Because incumbents have an indisputable advantage--their names are in the news frequently anyway and televised meetings keep their faces in the public eye--the TOTV exposure primarily helps challengers.

The trick is to leave the risk of libel litigation where it belongs: with the candidates making the statements, not with the city that broadcasts them. For this reason, it would make sense to have the videos screened by the city attorney’s office for libel concerns.

Beyond that, the content should be left up to the candidates. Voters deserve to hear for themselves what each of the aspiring City Council members has to offer. Deciding who is using the time to offer fresh, useful ideas and who is using it to spout irrelevant venom is a job for the voters.