We'll take every bit of free speech we can get, even if it means allowing politicians to say nasty things about each other.
Assembly Bill 127 is gradually making its way through the Nevada Legislature, despite some high-powered opposition. The bill would get the state's Ethics Commission out of the business of trying to referee scurrilous arguments between election candidates.
Having had a scurrilous thing or two said about us in the past, we can sympathize a bit with legislators who want to keep intact the Ethics Commission's role in investigating complaints about false or malicious campaign statements.
Yes, it's a big, bad world out there.
Nevertheless, we much prefer the First Amendment and its guiding principle that people are free to openly debate, criticize and, if their character allows it, lie -- without the specter of a government truth squad coming in to attempt to tidy up afterward.
In a perfect world, candidates would be truthful and open. They would not "impede the success" of their opponents' campaigns by issuing false statements.
But just as there is no perfect world, there are no perfect candidates. And it's up the voters -- not the Ethics Commission -- to decide who's telling the truth.
And even if those voters determine that one candidate is lying through his teeth, it's still their prerogative to vote for him if they want. Maybe they figure it's better to have a transparent liar than a skilled one.
Seriously, however, we don't like negative, misleading attack ads. We don't think most people do, either.
Ultimately, we put our faith in the majority of voters to pick the candidate they think will do the best job, with the strongest character and leadership ability. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best.