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.
To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory.
No, Ms. Fluke hasn't exactly kept quiet, but I think she's wise not to address Rush. Let him take the heat for this.
You can be as offended as you like, if the statement is true and factual, it is not defamation.
No, the Courts have repeatedly asserted and found that there is no constitutional right to slander someone; however, the devil is in the details of defamation's definition (how's that for alliteration).
In most countries, defamation is simple: if what you say or write about someone to a third party is enough to injure that person's reputation, then that's defamation and defamation is illegal. In the U.S., however, the 1st Amendment gives individuals broad rights to comment on anyone in the public interest. Truth is a basic defense that is used in U.S. defamation cases, and on that basis alone, many things that are considered even criminal acts of defamation elsewhere are perfectly legal here. Another factor is the degree to which someone is involved in matters of public interest. Courts generally have ruled that free speech should not be used to injure people who are leading essentially private lives unless they are doing something that represents a public's right to know (i.e. criminal or immoral acts that affect the person's community).
Now, whether defamation should be punishable, and whether our speech rights are too broad makes for an interesting debate. I go back and forth on this one myself, admittedly, and for the sake of disclosure, I admit to being completely biased.
If you got any more childish, you'd need your own show on the EIB network. Skinny was right. Your question was lame. That's why you didn't get a response.
You just didn't have a good answer. So run along now and take your phony outrage with you.
(I will say this to SkinnyPuppy too since he answers for you as well)
Yes, it certainly offends me. Limbaugh, who is allegedly an adult male, chose to malign a young woman who had initially been denied her right to testify in front of a Congressional panel regarding the issue of women's health care. The panel was comprised of five MEN. That men still believe that it's their right to interfere with issues that pertain only to a woman and her physician is extremely insulting. That they would also try to turn it into a religious issue is positively medieval. Rush called this young woman a sl*t, called her a prostitute, and suggested that she tape any sexual acts that she might engage in for his viewing pleasure. As a woman, a wife and a mother, this issue has everything to do with me. The men who have chosen to defend Limbaugh simply illustrates the perverse nature of far too many males, who are clearly unable to see women as human beings who are every bit as deserving of respect and equality as men.
My outrage is quite real and certainly justified. The backlash against Limbaugh should be an indication that millions of women are offended,
and with good reason.
BTW, those MEN are elected officials. Women voted for them too.
You can be as offended as you like, if the statement is true and factual, it is not defamation.
And unless anyone has proof to the contrary, I am guessing that proving it's NOT true and NOT factual would be pretty easy for Ms. Fluke -- especially since the "point" Rush Fat@ss was trying to make wasn't anywhere remotely being correct, let alone his "analogy" used to make his "point". He was wrong, presumably on both accounts.
The only defense that Rush would realistically have in this case is whether or not his comments would be taken seriously. He could -- and if I were his attorney I would -- argue that he was just full of it and that everyone pretty much understood that from the beginning. If he were to argue that successfully, then it would mean that nobody should have taken him seriously from the beginning because it was just right wing troll radio. Even so, it's certainly not an airtight defense. Larry Flynt got off for suggesting that Falwell had sex while magnetically levitating...mainly because it is physically impossible and therefore not to be taken seriously. It is, however, possible (even if not actually true) for Ms. Fluke to have lots of sex. Limbaugh seems to suggest through deliberate misrepresentation of the truth that this is indeed what she's doing, so there's a serious risk of harm to her reputation, especially when 15 million meathead listeners are too stupid to understand that Rush is basically an idiot who can't comprehend half of the issues he's talking about. I would say that Limbaugh can expect to pay out some money in a settlement sometime in the near future.
Keep in mind too that there might be other torts here. She might be able to sue for intentional affliction of emotional distress, which is pretty obvious with his repeated disparagement despite seeing all the writing on the wall telling him enough was enough.
You can be as offended as you like, if the statement is true and factual, it is not defamation.
Well, that statement is not "true and factual", which is actually redundant. Ms. Fluke never discussed her own sex life, and wanting birth control pills to be covered under one's insurance does not mean one wants to be paid for having sex. Right there is where Rushie went wrong.
4. The statement must be "injurious." Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement -- for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won't collect much in a defamation suit.
It would behoove you to peruse the "Limbaugh sponsors" thread and actually read Ms. Fluke's testimony. Hint: It has nothing to do with her sexual life, nor with any issues between her and her physician. Your many questions just reveal that you know nothing about what's been happening around you for the past week, like nononsenseguy and bigjon, who fled the scene when unable to provide even a snippet from Fluke's testimony to illustrate any suggestion that Fluke's testimony that proves her to be a sl*t or a prostitute. Once you're fully informed, you'll be better able to participate
in the ongoing discussion.
Well, that statement is not "true and factual", which is actually redundant. Ms. Fluke never discussed her own sex life, and wanting birth control pills to be covered under one's insurance does not mean one wants to be paid for having sex. Right there is where Rushie went wrong.
Incorrect, she specifically talked about her contraception costs while attending law school. Furthermore, she was not appearing before Congress to have the insurance companies pay for her contraception, she was demanding that taxpayers should cover the expense and insurance companies should provide her with contraception for free, without a co-pay. As the Dictator-In-Chief previously directed.
Rush Limbaugh was correct in every detail. Her own public testimony demonstrates that she is indeed a prostitute and a sl*t.
It would behoove you to peruse the "Limbaugh sponsors" thread and actually read Ms. Fluke's testimony. Hint: It has nothing to do with her sexual life, nor with any issues between her and her physician. Your many questions just reveal that you know nothing about what's been happening around you for the past week, like nononsenseguy and bigjon, who fled the scene when unable to provide even a snippet from Fluke's testimony to illustrate any suggestion that Fluke's testimony that proves her to be a sl*t or a prostitute. Once you're fully informed, you'll be better able to participate
in the ongoing discussion.
The minute she volunteered to go to congress to open her mouth was the minute she put her private life at risk, right or wrong. Personally, I don't think she's a prostitute. She COULD be a s**t but that is her business and even if she is one, nobody has proof. Yet.
Where did I say or agree with Limbaugh that she was a s**t or a prostitute? Show me where.
I am merely pointing out the PHONY outrage you and your ilk show everytime a left-winger has some sob story about something they deem unfair. If a left-wing pundit called her a s**t, this wouldn't be an issue because it certainly wasn't an issue when Laura Ingraham was called one.
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.
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.
