Literally yes, because the next prompted question is 'who determines what political speech is true and therefore allowed?', which is a path fraught with dragons.
Some statements are grey areas. Some are provably true or false. If a politician continually makes provably false statements, and they're supported by a large proportion of the media, then what recourse do voters currently have to prevent this from continuing?
Edit: What I'm suggesting is that free speech is protected against retribution from the government. The elected officials should be held to a higher standard. They are the government, and should not be protected against retribution from the voters. There should be serious penalties for any elected official who continues to make provably false statements after they've been pointed out.
In the first place, this is a thought-terminating cliché. Second, nothing prevents a politician from saying one thing to the voters and then doing something completely different once in office. (Especially at the federal level where there is no recall or recourse). The only accountability provided surrounds reelection.
It is the job of voters to hold them accountable. Our politicians are a mirror of ourselves. We usually get the leaders we deserve.
All 3 of these are non-substantive aphorisms that serve no discussion purpose. They are statements, bare ones at that, and do not pose a question or seek anything.
Universal recall would be some great low-hanging fruit to pick. As would algorithmic districting to deal with the gerrymandering problem so representatives are actually representative.
Those statements are substantive if you engage them in good faith, which you chose not to do. I'll elaborate for clarity.
Our lying, corrupt politicians are selected from an electorate who themselves peddle lies and falsehoods on social media, and often choose to believe convenient lies that support whatever cause they want to believe in. That's not my opinion. It's an empirical fact, which you can go verify for yourself: you don't have to spend but five minutes on Facebook or Twitter to see that it is true.
The people that complain about lying, corrupt politicians are almost always the same people that peddle lies on social media. If these people truly want less lying, corrupt politicians, then a prerequisite would be for them to not engage in that behavior themselves. As I said, our politicians mirror ourselves, and they are selected from among us. We get the leaders we deserve.
Universal recall won't solve the underlying problem. We'll cycle through lying politicians more frequently under such a system, but the incentive to lie to get elected remains unchanged.
Algorithmic districting simply punts the issue to a different group of people, who will be just as corruptable as the current set of people who draw district boundaries. Who will write the algorithm? Who will set the rules under which the algorithm operates? At least under our current system, politicians accountable to voters each term set the boundaries. How will the people writing the algorithm be held to account?
"The people that complain about lying, corrupt politicians are almost always the same people that peddle lies on social media. If these people truly want less lying, corrupt politicians, then a prerequisite would be for them to not engage in that behavior themselves. As I said, our politicians mirror ourselves, and they are selected from among us. We get the leaders we deserve."
This is false. I'm not sure where you get this idea from. The people that complain about lying, corrupt politicians are everyone. You did it in your reply. The "mirror ourselves" statement is defeatist and useless. There are honest people in the world. They are calling out lies and corruption every day. You do them the ultimate disservice to claim that they are "almost always the same people that peddle lies on social media".
Doctors, judges, witnesses in court cases and many others are held to higher standards of truthfulness than the average person. These are legally binding, and have real penalties. Why can't we hold politicians to the same standards?
If a witness in a trial is found to be lying, they can't resort to "Freedom of speech!" as a defense. They are charged with perjury. We should consider elected officials as being constantly under oath, and any dissembling should be treated as perjury.
