[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

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,

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.

[Scoutmaster]

I quit. "Public figure" and "limited public figure" are terms of art in defamation law. They don't mean what you think they mean.

But if you want to be lawyers - have at it. I'm no longer part of this discussion. I tried.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”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.”

She wont sue because she doesn't want to answer questions about her claims under oath.

Next, what damages would she sue for? Rush helped her cause of becoming a MSNBC liberal activist victim-hero. Given the interview I posted it's obvious it furthered her agenda.

Is she going to claim her boyfriend broke up with her thinking Rush was serious and knew about her sex life that he didn't know about? What's she going to claim that is worth? Did she lose standing as a contraceptive activist because Rush said she must be having sex frequently ??? HA-HA

And third, she wont get private figure protection.

last, she wont sue. This is about nothing.

Today one poster told me we are all in danger of these lawsuits. Lawsuits?