Replies

Rush was joking, and poking fun at the stupidity of Fluke’s testimony. The reason it was a joke was because it was utterly unbelievable that Fluke was having sex 1-2,000 times each year.

I see Mr Rogers is still playing lawyer.

Political Junkie Too, you don't want to be embarrassed when you discuss Fluke in front of liberals; you'll want facts. If you're going to rely on the legal analysis of non-attorneys, you may want to ask then for their analysis of Limbaugh's many other comments, such when he called Fluke "a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her life woman." One poster says it's a sterling example of Limbaugh's sense of humor. On the other hand that sentence was such a problem (or 'so funny') that Limbaugh's staff completely removed it from the transcript a full day before it removed the rest of the now-redacted transcript.

You may want to ask yourself if everything Limbaugh said was so clearly parody and satire, why do so many people on FR thought and still think Fluke talked about her sex life, when she didn't. Or ask why so many people here thought and still think she said she was having a lot of sex, when she didn't mention her sex life.

And be certain you get your money's worth from free, non-layer legal advice, Political Junkie Too. As how the poster applies Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), the believability of parody elements addressed in one of the underlying cases, Falwell v. Flynt, 797 F.2d 1270 (4th Cir. 1986); Smith v. Stewart, 660 SE 2d 822, 831-832 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008); Smith v. Atkins, 622 So.2d 795, 800 (La. Ct. App.1993); Bryson v. News America Publications, 672 N.E.2d 1207, 1217(I) (1996); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323; Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1976); Secord v. Cockburn, 747 F.Supp. 779 (1990); Associated Press v. Walker, 389 U.S. 28 (1967).

I didn't just cut and paste those. I've read each of them (and many other cases) this week regarding a specific point on this issue.