He talked about her on Tuesday the 29th, claimed she talked about her sex life, and called her a slut and a prostitute. The next day, in response to liberal complaints about 'slut' and 'prostitute,' he really, really went off on her again. The transcript is several computer pages long, even in a small, small font. He used the same terms, and base, and immoral. He keeps attributing to her certain things he claims she said about her sex life - three guys a night, etc. And he gets carried away and just gets worse and worse. And he makes it seem as if she said those things - and he was effective, because have people here who still believe she said them, and that she talked about her sex life.
Then he came back and did it again, on a lesser scale, the next day. Then . . . his attorneys talked with him. Slut is defamatory per se in a number of states. The Georgia Court of Appeals addressed the issue as recently as 2008 - and Limabaugh specifically used it in the connotation that she was sleeping with lots of guys. Prostitute is defamatory per se almost everywhere. Damages are presume. Limbaugh loses a 'reasonable belief' defense. If she sues, he has the burden of proof. He has to show either (a) by a preponderance of the evidence that she is a prostitute or is promiscuous, or (b) that she's a limited public person under the progeny of Times v. Sullivan.
At least that's where I am in my analysis.
Tuesday was the 28th. He talked about her on Wednesday the 29th. The 28th was a primary day. No talk of Sandra Fluke on that day. He talked about her for three days. Not four. If you are going to go off about Rush, then you’d better get your facts straight.
“Then he came back and did it again, on a lesser scale, the next day. Then . . . his attorneys talked with him. Slut is defamatory per se in a number of states. The Georgia Court of Appeals addressed the issue as recently as 2008 - and Limabaugh specifically used it in the connotation that she was sleeping with lots of guys. Prostitute is defamatory per se almost everywhere. Damages are presume. Limbaugh loses a ‘reasonable belief’ defense. If she sues, he has the burden of proof. He has to show either (a) by a preponderance of the evidence that she is a prostitute or is promiscuous, or (b) that she’s a limited public person under the progeny of Times v. Sullivan.”
I don’t know where you get your information. Obviously not Florida law.
First of all the defendant in a suit bears no “burden of proof” - the burden falls on the accuser.
He doesn’t have to show anything - she would have show he knew his allegation to be false when he made it.
Florida threw out its law about defaming a woman’s chastity long ago and rulings of Georgia courts bear no weight in Florida.