One of the reasons I dug up this February 16 interview and posted it today is because Sm was making that exact same argument to me a few days ago. But at the time I remembered seeing this interview and specifically that it was made before Rush's comments, and even before Pelosi’s make believe hearing,
Her purpose for this interview as a activist was to gain the public's attention and to change the mind's of the viewing public,
This interview kills your case councilor.
And if Fluke sued him, Rush's lawyers would make that argument. But I don't know if that TV appearance, plus her appearance with congressional Dems, constitutes ironclad proof that she was legally some kind of "public figure." Before the Rush comments, I'll bet that nobody even thought of doing a poll to find out what % of people knew who she was. Maybe Fluke's lawyers could do a poll asking people what it was that made them aware of her.
I don't know the answer. I think it would be a somewhat subjective judgment, like whether somebody suffered sufficient "mental anguish" to win a legal jackpot.
What case?
On another thread I posted that Sandra Fluke may have been a limited public figure for the purpose of women's reproductive rights ever since she was interviewed by a newspaper as treasurer of treasurer of Students Acting for Gender Equality (SAGE), during a protest of a pro-life display. That would have been pre-2003.
It's still the law that Rush Limbaugh has to deal with her status before he made a comment.
There's no place in my comment where I said her status before Rush's comment was a private figure.
I was addressing a comment that Fluke was now a public figure because of all that was going on - I said that didn't help Limbaugh. It doesn't. I said what mattered was her status when Rush first spoke, because that's the law.
I never said what her status was before Rush spoke; I'm just clearing up some blatant misinterpretations of the law.
Geez, in all of my posts, I've never said a positive word about the activist Fluke.