State Supreme Court Justices sat in judgment of one of their colleagues Friday, in a case that has brought up questions of judicial ethics, especially during elections.

Justice Michael Gableman is facing allegations of violating the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct, after his campaign ran an advertisement against then-opponent Louis Butler in the 2008 judicial election. The ad states when Butler was defending a child sex offender named Reuben Lee Mitchell, that “Butler found a loophole. Mitchell went on to molest another child.”

The ad fails to state that Butler lost his case and Mitchell committed the additional crime after he was released from prison.

The Wisconsin Judicial Commission filed a complaint after the election, saying Gableman violated the judicial ethics code by lying in his ad. Gableman’s lawyers say both sentences in the ad are technically true and are not a violation.

James Alexander, executive director of the Judicial Commission, said at the hearing the main issue of the case is whether the ad contained a false statement of fact, made with reckless disregard. If it did, then Gableman violated a part of the judicial code.

“The evidence is clear that the ad was published by Judge Gableman, knowingly, with intent,” Alexander said. “Judge Gableman did not have any information to lead him to believe that Louis Butler had anything to do with Reuben Lee Mitchell’s release from prison.”

Eric McLeod, Gableman’s lawyer, said the case had significant implications for free speech, especially during elections. Both statements in the ad are objectively and literally true, so Gableman cannot be accused of lying — even if taken together, they may imply something different about Butler’s role.

“The commission’s position in this case is squarely at odds with first amendment principles,” McLeod said at the hearing. “The Commission seeks to punish political speech.”

McLeod said the Commission is asking the court to look behind the statements at the implied message, which is not something the first amendment allows the government to do. The regulation of political speech by the government must focus on the substance of the communication itself, rather than the intent or effect.

McLeod said he does not believe the ad was misleading in any way, and for the ad to have violated the sentence of the judicial code as the Commission is alleging it did, the two sentences would have had to be objectively false.

Alexander said a sentence is not the same as a statement, and the statement of the ad is actually the meaning of the two sentences put together.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson said at the hearing that this case is “very troublesome” for the court, because it involves someone they work with.

“It’s very difficult to sit in judgment of anyone, and it’s part of the judge’s job,” Abrahamson said. “It is especially hard to sit in judgment when the person whom you’re judging is someone you know, you work with, you have to work with and you will continue to work with regardless of the result in this case.”

The court is expected to make its decision sometime this summer, and if it finds that Gableman did lie in the ad, he could be censured, suspended without pay or even removed from the bench.