Should it be against the law to call a woman a slut when she's not?

[Zalatix]

Just wondering.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. It is - not a crime, necessarily, but a tort.

At common law it's slander per se; you can sue and recover without having to prove damages, since it's considered to be such a grave insult that damages are presumed.

[Warpy]

14. Limbaugh also accused her of prostitution

and that is also actionable. I hope she sues. The only place that man is capable of feeling pain is his wallet.

[Booster]

32. I don't think soliciting porn for the internet is legal either. Although given how much porn is

already on the internet, I'm not sure. lol

[Zalatix]

33. I hope she sues him right back to his grandpappy's baby shoes.

[JDPriestly]

23. Let's say it is against civil law, but not against a criminal law.

[Frances]

2. No

We have always had name calling.

I get upset when the media says that the reason women are so angry with Rush is because he called Fluke a slut.

The reason I am so angry is that Rush said Fluke should videotape herself having sex and then post the video online so he and his followers could watch. That image is most disturbing! I think Rush is sick.

[Raine1967]

31. I agree -- What you said is the real issue:

I despise what he did he called her those names -- I am going to assume that most women did as well. Sadly -- this is somethign that we are used to, even in the face of not accepting such behaviour.

The media does focus on this -- I think this helps to further the age old false meme that women are too sensitive. (not true -- I don't think I have to explain this.... )

It is the demand -- and it was a demand --- to produce a sex tape. That is literally requesting sexual soliciation. That REALLY makes me angry and that is something that the media is not focusing on.

[MrSlayer]

3. No. Just no.

Criminalizing speech is a terrible idea. Besides, "slut" is a subjective term. One person's slut is another person's hero.

[Cleita]

4. Years ago we used to have laws against slander.

Don't know what happened to them, but the way it went was if your reputation was ruined by gossip and lies or slander you could sue the slanderers to recompense for ruining your life so to speak. Every now and then you would read of such a lawsuit in the papers. I believe Carol Burnett was able to sue the National Enquirer under that law because they did a story on her being a drunk. I would really think that what Rush did to that young woman would fall under this law if it still existed.

[Zalatix]

7. Lawsuits, YES!!! We can absolutely agree on that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. This has not changed; you can still sue for defamation

if someone has made false statements about you that damage your reputation. Many times, though, people prefer not to sue because it draws more attention to them. In many states you can't sue until the publication has had a chance to publish a retraction.

[nolabear]

5. No. But consequences should be expected.

[Canuckistanian]

6. Apparently, it is in Florida

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002402245

[Gore1FL]

11. My bad. I misread the story. My previous edit is in error.

[Zalatix]

12. No, it's a misdemeanor, an actual crime that can be punished by fines or imprisonment.

That Florida law is why I posted this thread.

[Canuckistanian]

18. I was surprised myself

Even though it's only a misdemeanor, I was shocked to find ANY law against insulting a woman in Florida.

[Zalatix]

25. It's a throwback to the days when women were "too weak" to defend themselves.

Quotes added for sarcasm's sake.

[notadmblnd]

9. Could it be considered hate speech?

[DURHAM D]

10. Well darn...

If the men in the various state legislatures, both Republicans and Democrats, had passed the ERA instead of voting against it that pesky Florida law would have just gone up in smoke.

But they told us they were just trying to "protect" us. Guess this is what they meant.

[Nye Bevan]

13. No. But she should be allowed to sue you for damages. (nt)

[elleng]

15. 'Crime?' No.

Subject to claim of slander? Yes.

[dogknob]

16. When is a woman EVER a slut? n/t

[glowing]

17. No, but if its something that harms someone in their professional life, libel suit should

be more than warranted. There is no reason to make a law against calling people names. We've never made a law against the N-word, but most people recognize its something you shouldn't toss around.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

19. Publicly, or privately? nt

[ZombieHorde]

20. Sometimes.

A boss shouldn't be allowed to call his employees sluts, even if they work in the porn industry.

[blue neen]

21. Maybe it would be a good idea to just eliminate the use of this word altogether.

It's NO ONE'S business to judge a woman's sex life or to decide what name to call her based on such.

Actually, the same goes for men. The private lives of consenting adults should just plain be off limits.

If a person is being hypocritical about it all--like Newt Gingrich--that could be a different story.

[enough]

22. This is a great question for pointing out the nature of the word "slut."

The way to think about it is:

"Is it against the law to call a person a nigg*r when he's not?"

The word itself presupposes the right of society to put a label on a person and assume it has actual meaning. The word itself assumes some people are worthy of respect and some are worthy only of contempt.

[shcrane71]

30. +1 "The word itself assumes some people are worthy of respect and some are worthy only of contempt."

Well said!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

24. That's what civil law is for.

I don't know if you're familiar with this application of the language, but this one is a good example of reclaiming the verbiage.

Slut walks against rape.

http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2011/08/04/slut-walk-feminists-fight-back-against-rape/

This usage needs to be legal since it does make one hell of a point.

[bigwillq]

26. No. It shouldn't be against the law.

But I don't agree with a radio talk show host that gets paid millions to use the word against an innocent party.

[blue neen]

29. Agreed.

It shouldn't be against the law, but it sure as heck should be a word that leaves our selective language.

[bowens43]

27. no. absolutely not.

[kestrel91316]

28. It is a tort and not a crime. This is as it should be.

However, it is enough of an insult that, should the woman in question deck the guy or kick him in the groin, THAT should not be considered a crime.

[mucifer]

34. It should be legal to fire someone when they do it for 9 hours of radio in a row

[slackmaster]

35. No, of course it shouldn't be illegal.

WTF are you talking about?

[Zalatix]

36. I am talking about this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002402245

[slackmaster]

38. You think a ridiculous, antequated Florida blue law is constitutional?

Your idea is even more bizarre than I had thought.

[onenote]

42. Which is why its particularly stupid for Allred to ask for it to be applied to limpy

Stupid, antiquated criminal defamation laws that are based on the notion that women need a greater degree of state-sponsored protection from offending speech than men are, thankfully, going the way of the buggy whip. But I haven't been able to find a case holding that a criminal defamation law of this sort is unconstitutional (although any criminal defamation law that doesn't require a showing of actual malice is unconstitutional under a 1964 SCOTUS decision).

[Zalatix]

43. No, I am saying it is unconstitutional.

[slackmaster]

44. Thanks, and please accept my apology

I didn't grok your innuendo.

[Zalatix]

46. No problemo... thanks!

[onenote]

37. for those who don't realize, it is a crime in several jurisdictions

Misdemeanor criminal libel and slander remains on the books in several states, including Florida and Virginia. The definition is a throwback to a different era. For example, here is the Florida language:

836.04 Defamation.—Whoever speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
History.—s. 1, ch. 3460, 1883; RS 2419; GS 3260; RGS 5091; CGL 7193; s. 990, ch. 71-136.

Here is Virginia's provision:

Any person who shall falsely utter and speak, or falsely write and publish, of and concerning any female of chaste character, any words derogatory of such female's character for virtue and chastity, or imputing to such female acts not virtuous and chaste, or who shall falsely utter and speak, or falsely write and publish, of and concerning another person, any words which from their usual construction and common acceptation are construed as insults and tend to violence and breach of the peace or shall use grossly insulting language to any female of good character or reputation, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

[slackmaster]

39. Here's a link to a whole Web site devoted to dumb laws like that

http://www.dumblaws.com/

[Chorophyll]

40. "when she's not?"

How do you determine whether or not a woman is a slut? Is a slut even a real thing?

But anyway, I think when you badmouth someone on the public airwaves, they have a right to sue you for slander. (Libel if it's the press.)

[lapislzi]

41. W. T. F.

What's a slut?

Oh, I get it. It's whatever you say it is.

[Zalatix]

45. No, there is an existing law making it a crime in Florida. I'm against that kind of law.

[Dreamer Tatum]

47. I was sentenced to 10 years in the slammer

when I was 5 for calling someone a "poopyhead."

So yeah, calling someone a slut should be grounds for criminal prosecution.

[SATIRical]

48. Who gets to determine what "Sexually promiscuous" is?

slut (slt)
n.
1.
a. A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous.

[Recursion]

49. The implication that some women "are sluts" is problematic

Different people have different relationships to sexuality. Some people (men and women) engage in sexual behavior that is hurtful to others and/or self-destructive; others don't. This would be a good area of human behavior to have a national discussion about (Dan Savage has probably done the best job about this) and come up with some norms and terms. "Slut" doesn't help in that, not because no women use sex hurtfully (plenty do) but because it contains an implication that how a woman uses sex hurtfully is by having many sex partners.

On the other side of this, a lot of sex-positive feminists have tried to reclaim the word "slut", so that throws a wrench into that engine there...