Does the First Amendment take precedent over the truth?

Milwaukee's Shepherd Express reported on the 2008 election campaign for Wisconsin's State Supreme Court where Justice Michael Gableman attacked then-Justice Louis Butler using inflammatory and knowingly false information.

One of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court justices - Justice David Prosser - who voted in favor of dismissing an ethics complaint against Gableman and not filing charges against him, stated the section of the Judicial Code of Conduct that regulated Gableman’s ad only recommends that candidates not lie about their opponents - it doesn’t require them to be truthful.

“What Justice Gableman did fell under that second part of the rule,” Prosser said. “Had it fallen under the first part of the rule, we might have had a different decision. But at any event, we have to honor the First Amendment.”

"Doesn't require them to be truthful"????? Are you fucking kidding me? Is that what they mean by "blind justice" or have I totally misinterpreted that phrase?