Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Does freedom of speech protect slander and libel?
No, slander and libel are not protected 23 88.46%
Yes, slander and libel are protected 1 3.85%
They are not protected but should be 2 7.69%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-06-2012, 03:24 PM
 
3,337 posts, read 5,097,410 times
Reputation: 1577

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar51 View Post
Still haven't read her testimony, huh? She was prevented from speaking in front of the 5 man panel, so the Democrats kindly gave her an informal
opportunity.

Only because they were politicizing her and using her as a pawn. To be fair, I'm sure Republicans would have done the same thing.



She spoke as a private citizen, not as a representative of any official entity. Her appearance would have been a blip in the news cycle if Limbaugh hadn't defamed and attacked her for 3 full days.

Possibly. I doubt it, but the level of attention would have certainly been a lot less.



In short, Limbaugh caused this shameful incident, all by himself. He did not know Sandra Fluke, yet made vile accusations against her repeatedly.

Agreed.


It's highly unlikely that a woman intelligent enough to be a 3rd year law student is a prostitute, but Rush has put himself in a position to have to
prove otherwise.

Not sure how intelligent she is JUST BECAUSE she's a law student. But I will give you that she's not very stupid.


She's likely far too busy to be a sl*t, and I've no doubt that Limbaugh dittoheads are scouring D.C. to find someone that she's
slept with.

You don't know this for a fact.

Unlike Fluke, Laura Ingraham makes her living by being a public figure, which means that her life and morals are open to scrutiny.

The same scrutiny that Fluke opened herself up to once the Dems started using her as a pawn.

That is a very different thing than being a private citizen who simply gives testimony in a limited setting.

She's no longer a private citizen once she testifies to Congress. C'mon, regardless of politics, any individual given this opportunity would be held up publicly by the other side.


I dislike Bill Maher and would never condone his misogyny, which is the same as Limbaugh's. I don't watch his show for that reason. Nor did I accuse you of saying that she fits either of those descriptions, only that two posters who'd had no trouble using those terms to malign her beat a hasty retreat from the thread when asked to give some corroborating evidence from her testimony because they hadn't
read it. It's obvious that you hadn't either, or your first question would not have been one referring to her and her physician.

I did read it. Yawwwn.

It should be clear at this point that millions of people were outraged by Limbaugh's unwarranted attacks and think they were beyond the pale...he's still bleeding sponsors as I type. The outrage is real, and as more people inform themselves as to what Limbaugh did to this young woman and the half-arsed, insincere apology he offered, the more disgust there will be. And I'm not an "ilk," just a woman who resents male intrusion into the most private aspects of an innocent woman's life. Into any private citizen's life.

Most are outraged because they are told to be outraged by their political masters. No outrage whatsoever from the left when Palin, Bachmann and Ingraham were called derogatory names. Don't use the "private citizen" issue either; Palin and Ingraham and Bachmann were private citizens once too as well as females trying to do exactly what you want women to do and your side blasted them and called them these same names.

People just need to get a thicker skin. I'm not saying that Ms. Fluke doesn't have a right to be pissed. She clearly does. However the rest of the Democrats frothing at the mouth wanting Limbaugh's head are phonies who need to grow up.
Capiche?
In Red.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-06-2012, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis
2,528 posts, read 3,034,597 times
Reputation: 4338
Potentially defamatory comments are, and should be, constitutionally protected speech. That doesn't mean that one doesn't have to deal with the civil legal consequences of such speech. Rush Limbaugh made extremely offensive comments about someone he really doesn't know. The fact that she wasn't a "public figure" would likely give her more leverage in a defamation claim. On the other hand, since Limbaugh is an entertainer who is infamous for his rhetoric, he might be able to claim use of caricature as a defense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2012, 04:46 PM
 
Location: Beautiful Niagara Falls ON.
10,016 posts, read 12,523,761 times
Reputation: 9030
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
If this were the case, the entire left wing of politics would be locked up for their slander and libel against Palin, Beck, Rush, etc.
You don't get it. You can't be convicted of libel or slander if what you are saying is the TRUTH!!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2012, 05:22 PM
 
Location: Illinois Delta
5,767 posts, read 4,996,242 times
Reputation: 2063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kkaos2 View Post
Correction - it was a panel on whether it was constititional to enforce a mandate on a religious organization if that mandate would violate the religion's stated beliefs.

It had zippo, nada, nothing whatsoever to do with women's healthcare.

Another correction - there is no right to testify before congress.

In blue: But the specifics of Ms. Fluke's testimony spoke directly to women's reproductive health; her friend had polycystic ovary syndrome and had been denied birth control pills because the hierarchy at Georgetown didn't accept her physician's recommendation as to treatment. This may prevent her from having children. Had Ms. Fluke been
allowed to speak before the five man panel, this would be a non-issue. What is your reasoning regarding the rationale for having an all-male panel
in the first place?


That liberals still use that old beaten to death fallacy that no man can have an opinion about a woman's issue is extremely insulting to my intelligence.

You are, of course, entitled to an opinion. That does not mean, however, that you or any body of men be they secular or canonical, have the right
to deny or control issues that pertain to conditions specific to women,
such as childbirth or treatment of other gynecological problems.


Men have been husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons to women since the dawn of history but suddenly women are supposed to be like aliens from outer space when it comes to anything having to do with their reproductive system.

Quite the contrary; there have always been ways available to women to control reproduction. In ancient times there was an herb grown on an island in the Mediterranean whose entire economy was based on the cultivation of this abortifacient. No doubt that could be found cached in the archives of Archaeology Magazine. The Roman Catholic Church, males all, removed choice from womens' lives by declaring midwives and herbalists as witches, thus enforcing a ban on women having the ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies. This was deemed necessary in order to ensure that all progeny were the result of marital congress and only protected the right of males to be sure that their property and wealth be
unquestionably inherited by legitimate sons. Julius Caesar divorced one wife on the basis of a rumor, as "the wife of Caesar must be above reproach." Women had to fight strenuously in order to regain control of their bodies; the fact that women haven't even had the right to vote for 100 years in America is mute testament to the male "need" to control.



It's just biology. It's not a mystery of the universe.




It's dumb. It was a dumb argument the first time a feminist tried to use it 40 years ago, it's been dumb all through that time, and it's dumb now.

It may seem dumb to someone in no danger of death in childbirth or the toll taken on a woman's body through repeated pregnancies or a disease,
but it's quite pertinent to those who are directly affected by such things.

Nevertheless, as pesky as it may be to enlightened modern folks, freedom of religion does exist in the constitution. As much as it may annoy you, you can't just ignore it.

And there is also freedom from religion, so that no one may be forced to live according to the religious beliefs of others. That is part of this dialog as well.

As a woman, a wife, and a mother it has squat to do with you. It has to do with Sandra Fluke. Are you Sandra Fluke? No? Then it has nothing to do with you. Rush didn't insult wives or women or mothers. He insulted Sandra Fluke. You aren't her and women as a group do not have special immunity from insult. Therefore, it isn't your business.

To the contrary; it has only been through strength of numbers that women have gradually been granted the rights enjoyed by men. In fact, it was only after the election of President Obama that the Lily Ledbetter Act was signed into law, guaranteeing women the right to the same pay as their male counterparts, for the first time in American history. What happens to one woman may happen to all, without due diligence in protecting what rights women have gained. Surely you haven't forgotten your Donne: "No man is an island entire of itself..." or "Therefore ask not
for whom the bell tolls?" I may be a single entity, but I am also a part of the body politic and as such rightfully concerned to see that such hard-won battles are not reversed through the interference of others.

Your comment is positively laughable. Men should treat you as equal but never insult you? Newsflash for you: men insult other men --- being called names and having your sexuality insulted is being treated equally. But when a feminist says "I want equal treatment" that translates to "I want special treatment"

So you've made the point that men are capable of insults...does that imply that it's an acceptable practice? Perhaps fewer insults and more civility would be desirable for society as a whole. Equal treatment is very
different from the "same treatment," and suggesting that feminists would
be conducting themselves as equals by engaging in disrespect for others
is, to use your words, "positively laughable." You will note, I hope, that Sandra Fluke has conducted herself in an appropriate and dignified way
from the onset of this controversy.


The problem is the righteous indignation of the left over the attacks on Sarah Palin was nowhere to be found. But now that it is Rush Limbaugh instead of Bill Maher, you're completely outraged. So that's what leaves us thinking you all are a bunch of partisan hypocrites.
I have made the point repeatedly that I am no fan of Bill Maher; he is as misogynistic as Limbaugh and views most women as sexual objects and nothing more. Long before Sarah Palin descended from Alaska, Hillary Clinton was the subject of ridicule and censure by the GOP and Limbaugh;
where was your righteous indignation then? That leaves me with the belief that your silence was tacit approval, making you a partisan hypocrite, without question. BTW, are you using the royal "we?"

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2012, 05:54 PM
 
Location: Illinois Delta
5,767 posts, read 4,996,242 times
Reputation: 2063
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroc5156 View Post
In Red.
Thank you for what is, in general, a thoughtful response. Please refer to my response to Kkaos2 for a more in-depth reply; I'm sorry, but I'm a bit tired at this point. I must stress; long before Palin and Bachmann, the RW delighted in demeaning Hillary; did you object? If there is a cogent agreement among the Left, it would be that we tend to lay much of the blame for the deterioration of civil discourse at the feet of Rush Limbaugh, who has spent almost three decades perfecting the art of covert racism, sexism and defamation of character. In his hubris he has finally reached the point of being hoisted by his own petard. There is some element of satisfaction in that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top