Posted on 03/05/2012 10:38:29 AM PST by Scoutmaster
I've seen references in some of the threads on Rush Limbaugh, Sandra Fluke and Limbaugh's apology, wondering whether Fluke will sue Limbaugh for defamation or libel. I'm not an expert in this area, but here are a few thoughts.
First, for those who haven't read Fluke's testimony, and although it may well have been factually incorrect in many ways, Fluke never mentioned her own sex life or use of contraceptives. She was going to be called by the Democrats as a expert primarily how women with medical issues that could be treated by oral birth control were being denied 'medical care' in the form of oral birth control because it was also a contraceptive.
Right after being introduced, Fluke said:
"When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage. [I]n the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear yet from another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously-affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially and emotionally and medically because of this lack of coverage.“And so, I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them – not me – to be heard.
Fluke then went on to share the stories of six other women (who may or may not exist). As an example, Fluke told of a friend who allegedly has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and her birth control prescription is 'technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy', but the 'gay' friend was denied coverage because the insurance company interviewed her and decided that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy.
The stories were almost all about women who allegedly had medical issues that should have been treated with oral contraceptives, but payment for the medical treatment was allegedly denied because it would have meant paying for a contraceptive. Most importantly, none of the stories was about Fluke, Fluke's sex life, Fluke's use of contraceptives, Fluke's cost of contraceptives, or Fluke's need for contraceptives.
Remember, Fluke was supposed to be an expert on the issue of why oral contraceptives were needed for all of these non-sex purposes.
When Rush Limbaugh called Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" repeatedly over the course of four days, he constantly made specific allegations about what Fluke had said. Among the four days of comments, Limbaugh said Fluke was "a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her life woman." Which is odd, because Fluke never spoke of her own life. Rush claimed Fluke had testified that "she's having so much sex she can't pay for it," although Fluke never said she was having sex or using contraceptives. Limbaugh said things like:
What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke [sic], 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? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.
None of the statements about her sex life that Limbaugh attributed to Fluke were true, because Fluke never spoke about her sex life or her use of contraceptives. But Limbaugh repeatedly called Fluke a "slut," and a "prostitiute" based on her statements that he made up.
Rush blew it. He made hours of specific demeaning (at least to conservatives) allegations about what Fluke said, and those allegations weren't true. And he called her insults (at least to conservatives) based on the false statements he attributed to her.
So what if she sues for defamation? It's clear that Limbaugh made hours of claims attributing statements to Fluke that she simply didn't make. If you deny that then you need to read Fluke's statement and compare it with the statements Limbaugh attributes to her. It's hard for Limbaugh to assert that he didn't intend 'slut' to be a bad thing. He said he'd be ashamed of her if she was his daughter, and many similar comments. And let's put aside for a moment the issues of whether she suffered damages and how she would prove them.
Since New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), a public figure suing for defamation must prove that that the defendant/publisher had 'actual malice,' which means the defendant must have known that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.
Was Sandra Fluke a public figure? Simply appearing before Congress, or appearing in the public, isn't enough to make one a public figure. If Sandra Fluke had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress and had been required to make her statements as testimony, she almost certainly would not have been a public figure. Fluke also wasn't a standard public figure at the time she gave her presentation because she hadn't earned that role by being 'pervasively' in the news.Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345. Without further research into the issue, it sounds to me as if Fluke fits this description; she has worked in this area and agreed or offered to appear before Congress. And you can't kid anyone; we know it was in order to influence the issue of the Obamacare mandate on payment for contraception.
If Fluke is a public figure, what is the standard she must prove? The actual malice standard requires that she prove Limbaugh knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.
"Actual malice" is very had to prove. It goes beyond mere neglect in fact-checking, or not meeting professional standards. Generally the publisher must have an actual doubt as to the truth of the statement, or a "high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity.'" St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968)
So . . . I'd love to hear some experts in the area of defamation of public figures weigh in, but my quick-and-dirty is that if Fluke were not a public figure, it's clear that Limbaugh defamed her repeatedly. (And we'd get to the issue of whether Fluke could prove damages; in her sphere, being called a 'slut' by Rush Limbaugh may have improved her future earning potential.) He attributed demeaning statements to her that she simply didn't make, and he did it repeated on national/international radio over a period of four days. Then he called her some unflattering terms based upon his own false attributions.
Fluke looks like a limited pubic figure for the purpose of her presentation. Did Limbaugh act with a high degree of awareness that his attributions were probably false? That's a very tough standard to meet, although just because the standard's tough to meet won't keep a liberal attorney from suing Limbaugh and keeping this issue in the headiness and Limbaugh on the hot seat.
Her voluntary appearance with the specific intention of influencing public policy would I believe, qualify her as a public figure.
What’s the point of this thread? Is this like the third or fourth time you’ve posted this “analysis”?
bingo, and the appology essentially immunizes him from any litigation.
It also opens her entire life, not just this episode.
Also, it makes every democrat, phone record subject to discovery.
It also makes her school transcript history (ALL of it) subject to discovery.
Yeah? The blowhard Ms. Fluke didn't say it cost all women on the pill $1,000. She said the pill without insurance "can cost" over $1,000 per year (over $3,000 in three years).
That's a true statement, not Bravo Sierra. It's carefully written to shock, but it's true, isn't it?
And because Ms. Fluke's presentation was about women who allegedly needed the pill for specific medical conditions, I don't know that generic birth control pills work for the conditions she named.
Isn't it true that birth control pills can cost over $1,000 per year without a prescription if you have to have specific ones for a medical condition?
That's why this activist was asked to speak to Congress. To bring up this statistical outlier situations and present them as a crisis.
It would also be a vehicle to expose all her ties to the feminazi underground, which is how she was asked to testify in the first place. It would not be a good idea on her part to sue, she and the leftists are better off making as much hay as they can and then moving on to the next effort to destroy America.
Rush was discussing her testimony, not her personal life. He then asked the logical question about her testimony.
Fluke never specifically said who she was referring to. She was very dishonest about that. No one had authorized her to speak on their behalf. No other women were identified. Fluke said $3000 for contraception was as much as she herself made in one summer. She said women at Georgetown are suffering because they can not afford contraception. She did not specifically include or exclude herself from the women she said she was talking about.
Rush was commenting on her testimony, not the personal life of this 30 year old law student. The MSM coverage avoids all the specifics of Fluke’s testimony.
The point is Fluke’s testimony was dishonest and probably perjury. Rush commented on her testimony and it was taken out of context.
I want to be certain I have the facts straight. Can you tell me when and where she said that?
In her statement to Congress, she refers several times to doctors prescribing contraceptives for medical conditions - but insurers refusing to pay for them.
Fluke made several statements that were either falsehoods or mistakes.
Jury,,,,,Nullification
The problem with this is that the insurance at Georgetown does cover birth control pills for PCOS. Ms. Fluke stated that the policy says it covers bc for PCOS. She said that her friend said the insurance company refused to cover the pills because the insurance company claimed the pills were desired for birth control rather than PCOS treatment. Fluke claimed the friend is a lesbian. Fluke claimed that the friend purchased the pills herself until she could no longer afford them and ended up with a ruptured ovarian cyst that caused the loss of an ovary. The friend may want to have children one day and her chances are now greatly reduced. Actually, PCOS patients already are at a disadvantage when it comes to having babies. Their hormones are all messed up. Statistically, even with two ovaries, PCOS patients are much less likely to carry a baby beyond the first trimester. The Pill is a treatment that helps regulate the out of whack hormones. An insurance company that denies a claim for a necessary medication had better have medical documentation to support the denial. If the lesbian friend were telling the truth, she should be suing the mess out of the insurance company. If the friend is lying, that is another matter altogether. Alas, we do not know who the friend of Ms. Fluck is, so we don’t know if she made the story up or not.
Actually, she didn't. She didn't testify before Congress, at all. She couldn't get approved to testify before the Congressional Committee, so the Democrats set up a meeting later which was organized to look like a hearing, but wasn't and which provided a forum for her to give her statement with all of it's misstatements and red herrings.
“She co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. Fluke was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President’s Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence.”
Leadership of such groups clearly makes her a public figure. And why are you so hot to carry the flag for her? You seem to believe that leaders in such advocacy groups, who testify in front of committees can walk around immune from response. Thats BS. And Rush was attacking her DIRECTLY on her testimany. Rush will be fine.
Her testimony was not under oath because it was not a real Congressional hearing. It was a “Mock” hearing staged by Pelosi.
There are many layers in an onion and peeling them all away would brings a lot of tears for the rats.
bookmark
No, it does not. I do not think you understand what the term 'public figure' means in U.S. v. Sullivan. A person must 'pervasively' be in the press and public to be a public figure. The fact that you and I know who this Fluke lady is today is . . . a fluke. She wasn't a public figure. Please stop playing lawyer.
For purposes of Suillivan, there is a category called a 'limited public figure." Have you performed the "particularized determination" required by the U.S. Supreme Court to see if Fluke's a limited public figure?
And why are you so hot to carry the flag for her?
I'm not carrying the flag for her. I think conservatives should stand for what is right. When Rush Limbaugh makes up a bunch of stuff and claims somebody said it in front of congress, and then calls her a slut based on what he falsely claims she said, that's wrong. Even though Rush Limbaugh is conservative.
It's wrong even though Rush Limbaugh is conservative.
Even though Rush Limbaugh is conservative.
And it's wrong that people keep repeating lies on FR about what she 'said.'
When we reach the point that there is no right and wrong - and that if a conservative does it, it's right no matter what . . . count me out.
Fluke may have made up the stories of all six women.
But Rush didn't talk about whether the stories of he six women were true. People on FR, except for a few people like you who paid attention, aren't interested in whether the medical stories are true.
Rush made up all of this stuff about Fluke's personal sex life and use of contraceptives. As did people on FR. And they're still doing it. I'm reading posts about how Fluke testified about the percentage of women at Georgetown who listed sex as a preferred recreational activity. You know, evidence that they are sluts.
Now, it doesn't matter that none of that is the truth. Instead of being interested in the truth, which is what I thought conservatives did (well, until all of the "Gibson Guitars' CEO is a Republican" posts), people just want to attack the lefty blowhard Sandra Fluke and are willing to make up any slander they can to demean her.
Just as if we were a bunch of . . . liberals.
The entire testimony is ridiculous.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/271051_Full_Transcript_of_Sandra_FlukThe entire testimony is ridiculous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.