Noted lawyer Gloria Allred, writing on the letterhead of the Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund has asked the West Palm Beach County Attorney to prosecute Rush Limbaugh for violating Fla. Stat. § 836.04:
Whoever speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree ….
Readers of the blog know of my disapproval of Rush Limbaugh’s “slut”/”prostitute”; but while I condemned those remarks, they can’t be criminally punished.
1. Knowingly false statements of fact about a person are indeed constitutionally unprotected, whether they injure the person’s reputation (and are thus libel or slander) or would simply be highly offensive to a reasonable person (and are thus actionable under the false light tort. But that is so only when a reasonable listener would perceive these as factual assertions, not as hyperbole or as statements of opinion.
Thus, for instance, say that A asserts that B is guilty of “blackmail.” Blackmail is a crime, and accusations of crime are generally actionable libel. But if in context it is clear that the word is “rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered [B]‘s negotiating position extremely unreasonable,” then the accusation is constitutionally protected opinion — it is basically an assertion that B’s accurately described conduct is morally similar to blackmail, a statement of opinion (and perhaps clearly understood hyperbole). So the Court held in Greebelt Coop. Pub. Ass’n, Inc. v. Bresler (1970).
Limbaugh’s saying that Fluke’s testimony “makes her a slut” and “makes her a prostitute” falls into the same category: Listeners would understand is as “rhetorical hyperbole, … vigorous epithet[s] used by [Limbaugh,] who considered [Fluke’s advocacy] extremely unreasonable,” an assertion (however logically unsound, in my view) that Fluke’s demands are morally similar to a prostitute’s insistence on getting money for sex. That is a statement of opinion and constitutionally protected.
The same is so for the “slut” claim, for a related reason: Limbaugh isn’t claiming any private knowledge of Fluke’s number of sexual partners; he is simply expressing his opinion that people who are as concerned about contraceptive costs as Fluke are probably sexually promiscuous, and that Fluke fits that mold. Reasonable listeners would understand that as an opinion expressing a generalization about how people tend to behave. To borrow an analogy from Restatement (Second) Torts § 566 cmt. c ill. 4, “A writes to B about his neighbor C: ‘He moved in six months ago. He works downtown, and I have seen him during that time only twice, in his backyard around 5:30 seated in a deck chair with a portable radio listening to a news broadcast, and with a drink in his hand. I think he must be an alcoholic.’ The statement indicates the facts on which the expression of opinion was based and does not imply others. These facts are not defamatory and A is not liable for defamation.” In the illustration, the statement is seen as an opinion about what to infer from the facts, and is thus not actionable; that is even more clearly true as to the statement that, “What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right?”
hmm, by the wording of that law, wouldnt Fluke have to prove her Chastity for what Rush said to have “falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity”???
LOL now THAT would be an interesting trial
btw, that sounds like an old blue book law that needs to be repealed.
Allred still looking for cheap publicity for losing causes, eh? Gee… alert the press. LOL
But then, she’s lost all traction and interest for her Cain accuser. So she’s looking for more scandal spotlight.
hummm… Allred v Rush. Well, I certainly know what to tell the bookie on that one.
i could never be in a jury for any case with her in it
cause it would prejudice me against her client
fluke will give up if she see her future demolish by the hungry MEDIA turn against her
as soon as she miss speak , she should know they are watching her like hyenas,
How can anyone take this woman seriously? She goes on TV and gits off simulating sex with a bat and a males hand. Only in a prog world is she ruled sane.
@Buffalobb: OMG, i thought you were joking
but i found the video on youtube
LOL
I agree with the blogger on all but one point:
No, actually, she didn’t.
The dems set up a pretend committee-looking set, dressed it up with all the trimmings.
She spoke on a stage, a set.
It was pure political theater.
Maybe Gloria ought to watch Fox News.
Seems while ”poor” Fluke can’t even afford birth control, her boyfriend is donating money to various members of the Dem Party.
His daddy is Bill Mutterperl.
Also a big Dem donor. ($47,100 in the last three campaigns.)
And, maybe her priorities just aren’t right…..
She managed to afford to take Spring Break from Georgetown out here in sunny Southern California!
Nan G
hi,
you know, I feel sorry for her, that is poor as she can be,
maybe we could send her a week of pills, she being poor would strech the pills for 10 days
instead to save, that tell me, she would have to skip the sex actions for 3 days,
she could separate those 3 days between the 2 days each,
when your poor you got to restrain yourself right.
yes there is always the slot machine to past time
While Rush’s comments were over the top, they were opinion. They are minor in comparison with the profanity laced utterances made by adored leftist misogynists like Bill Maher and shock-jock Howard Stern.
What would the members of a jury presume of the character of a person who makes claim that she will need $3-grand in contraceptives to support her extra-curricular sexual activities while at a Catholic college? Especially after they were told how inexpensive (often free) contraception really is. What speculative opinions would a Leno-like “Jay-walking” episode get from people on the street about such a woman if it was put to them? Ask them also: if this such a person were in their HMO, do they think their health care company should give that person all the contraceptives they want, absolutely free of charge with no co-pay? On a more personal level, what would you think of coworkers who cause your company healthcare provider to spend $3000 to provide them with “free” contraception, for their wild and free sex-lives, when your own employee healthcare costs are raised to provide that service. What if you found out about this after you or a family member were denied to be provided a needed but not covered procedure? C’mon, let’s be honest now.
TOP TEN REASONS WHY FLUKE’S BIRTH CONTROL IS SO EXPENSIVE.
10. Gold plated condoms
09. Paying for Bill Clinton’s vasectomy.
08. Needed to replace her convertible’s shock absorbers.
07. John Edwards was in town…had to buy a few blank VHS (nudge-nudge, wink-wink).
06. Smoked $50 Cuban cigars after sex.
05. EPA issued a new tax on “toxic fluids cleanup”
04. She had a habit of tipping the abortion doctor.
03. Hired a P/R firm to promote her body as a “womb with a view”.
02. Had to payoff Michelle Obama to make sure that oral sex didn’t fall under the “food police”.
01. It’s that dang Obamacare. He said the rates wouldn’t go up but as usual the prez is a lying SOB.
Bonus entry: Bought a special diaphragm which had a police radar…to keep the men from going “too fast”.
Tim
RUSH should have said all those , they would not have been able to focus on one of it,
In case anyone ever does get placed on a jury for something like this, The Fully Informed Jury Association ( fija.org )
the primary function of the independent juror Is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, But rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government.
The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that the government must bring it’s case before a jury of The People if government wants to deprive Any person of life liberty or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict.
It’s an interesting site. I’m not in “the lawyer business”, just wanted to pass the info along.
Anti-Socialist
that is a super advice, for the people to know, even for the both the victim
and the accused, and sometimes it is a minor offence which has put all the weight on the accuse back leaving no chance of telling his own side of the story,
like we have read on the POST;DO FELON DESERVE A CHANCE; RIGHT HERE ON FA,
with many cases wich left them guilty for their lifetime because of the MARK ON THEIR NAMES, WHERE THEY ARE PREVENTED TO FIND A DECENT JOB AS LONG AS THEY LIVE, AND FOR SOME OF THEM, BECAUSE THEY HAPPEN TO BE AT THE CRIME SCENE ONLY,
THANK YOU FOR THE LINK