Did Sandra Fluke's House testimony make her a public figure? She knew that her testimony would be national news.
I don't expect this to go to court, and I doubt Fluke would win if it did, but I wonder which slander law would apply.
posted on 03/10/2012 12:05:41 AM PST
It wasn’t House testimony. It was a publicity stunt set up to look like a real hearing .... something the media overlooks in their descriptions of Fluke. I am not aware that she has ever testified at a House hearing, at least not in relation to the current kerfluffle. So .... does willingly participating in a publicity stunt make you a public figure? My vote would be ‘yes’.
Also, Allred mischaracterizes the content of Rush’s apology. Rush’s ‘apology’ did not acknowledge anything other than he should have been more careful with his choice of words. That was it ... ‘choice of words’. Rush may have been careless in his choice of words, but that apology was VERY carefully worded .... I’m sure HIS attorney took a good look at it before it ever went out.
posted on 03/10/2012 4:38:22 AM PST
(Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't. (M.Thatcher))
I asked a lawyer friend of mine about this, and she argued that she was still a private figure. I said that she was limited public figure, in that she interjected herself into national debate on a hot topic.
I think at this point, Fluke will claim slander, and she will be paid off where she can continue doing her nasty work. Someone will pay her - and she will continue being a useful tool.
posted on 03/10/2012 5:54:09 AM PST
(Life, for a liberal, is one never-ending game of Calvinball. - giotto)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson