In all seriousness, as Ilya Shapiro’s blog post suggests, there is an exceedingly important principle at stake here:
However well intentioned Ohio legislators may have been, laws that criminalize “false” speech don’t replace truthiness and snark with high-minded ideas and “just the facts.” Instead, they chill speech, replacing the sort of vigorous political dialogue that’s at the core of the democratic process with silence. The Supreme Court of all institutions should understand that just because a statement isn’t fully true, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its place in public discourse. Moreover, pundits and satirists are much-better placed to evaluate and send-up half-truths than government agencies.
Exceedingly well put. Here’s hoping that Ohio’s ridiculous and outrageous attempt to chill speech is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.