“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.
No. I hope the weather is nice in Florida, wherever you are. Is calling somebody a 'prostitute' (i.e., accusing them of criminal behavior) still per se defamation in Florida?
Both 'slut' and 'prostitute' are per se defamation in some states. As to the word 'slut,' you could start with Smith v. Stewart, 660 SE 2d 822, 831-832 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). I sent you to pages 831-832 because that's where the court cites Smith v. Atkins, 622 So.2d 795, 800 (La. Ct. App.1993) and Bryson v. News America Publications, 672 N.E.2d 1207, 1217(I) (1996), "per se" defamation 'slut' cases from other jurisdictions which the Georgia Court of Appeals cites favorably on its way to holding that 'slut' is per se defamatory in Georgia. "Slut" may no longer be defamatory in Louisiana and Illinois, but the court would have to go against precedent there. "Prostitute" is more problematic, because that's not only sexually degrading, that's an accusation of criminal behavior. A bigger ding on the 'per se' meter, no?
First of all the defendant in a suit bears no “burden of proof” - the burden falls on the accuser.
You are absolutely right. I took a shortcut. Assume a per se defamation state, in which once you prove Limbaugh called you a 'slut' or a 'prostitute', and that it was heard by a third party, damages are assumed (because its per se defamation, that's the rule), so now it turns to Limbaugh.
And that point, Limbaugh has the burden of proof of an affirmative defense. Truth? (Showing by a preponderance of the evidence that she is a prostitute or is promiscuous, as I said). Or limited public figure? The progeny of Times v. Sullivan, as I said.
If there's no per se rule in Florida, then I don't think Fluke would choose Florida as the place she would file suit, right?