[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

My point is that she is not just some civic minded citizen who was forced into this political PUBLIC battle by Rush. Going on MSNBC with Ed Schultz to fight this battle shows her to be a political warrior public figure who cannot sue Rush as a private figure,.

[Scoutmaster]

My point is that she is not just some civic minded citizen who was forced into this political PUBLIC battle by Rush. Going on MSNBC with Ed Schultz to fight this battle shows her to be a political warrior public figure who cannot sue Rush as a private figure

You should be aware of two tricky little catches in the law (and remember that she's a 'limited public figure').

You look at somebody at a point in time. If she brought a defamation lawsuit against Rush Limbaugh, then it wouldn't matter at all what her status is now. What would matter is what her status was at the precise moment Rush made his first allegedly defamatory comment.

The second is that Rush isn't given 'credit' for any of the fame she has as a result of his comments. If you've watched enough crime shows on TV, then you've heard the expression 'fruit of the poisonous tree.'

Rush would not be allowed to say she was a public figure based on any of the attention he drew to her by his comments, or by the attention that came from the liberal reaction to his comments. That's the law; it's not something I made up.

She gets to start with a clean slate.

I think she was a limited public figure for purposes of the topic of women's contraceptive rights the moment she testifies, under something called the Gertz test - and she may have been a limited public figure since she got media attention for protesting a pro-choice display at Cornell.

But none of this after-the-fact attention counts at all under the law, when it comes to considering whether she was a limited public figure when Rush spoke about her.