Sandra Fluke needs to sue LardAss for every penny he has...

[Rosco T.]

.. for defamation, slander, libel, being a general asshat.

Then as some have said, if she's not interested in money... take that judgement and make a MASSIVE donation to Planned Parenthood

[calimary]

1. Truly! I do wonder WHY more people on our side aren't suing.

She's being libeled and slandered! Seems to me she has more than enough grounds to sue. And yes, take the settlement and donate it to Planned Parenthood. There should be CONSEQUENCES for spewing this shit. Certainly you're free to spew, but there should be a price to pay for doing so if you're spewing hatred, racism, and misogyny. Hey, don imus is likely to think twice before blurting out any wise-ass crack about "nappy-headed hos" from here on. It cost him to do that. It cost him his job, his media power base, his reputation, and probably a fair amount of money. It was once a practice to shun people who did wrong. Because sometimes that was the only way to get any justice. limbaugh should be shunned - straight off the air! Used to be we'd shout at bullies - "hey, why dontcha pick on somebody your own size?" Now we reward and reinforce it by showering money and power on it.

[Rosco T.]

2. I want that LardAss Canker on the ass of humanity..

.. OFF the air, resigned to the backwaters like Beck. Hit his sponsors yes, but hit the STATIONS that carry him. When he loses stations, he loses ears, which makes the sponsors take a second look.

[onenote]

12. My guess is that you are not a lawyer.

And that your assertion that "she has more than enough grounds to sue" and your wonderment at the fact more people aren't suing are not a reflection of any legal analysis of the pros and cons of bringing such lawsuits. As most lawyers know, it is incredibly hard to make out a case of libel (or slander). Might she win? Yes. But it would take a long time before the case was resolved -- Limpy has very deep pockets and is probably insured up to the hilt.

Plus, as others have pointed out on DU, bringing a defamation suit runs the risk of allowing the right to deflect the issue from the one Sandra Fluke cares about -- the availbility of birth control -- to one about how much she was personally "damaged' by Limpy's barf-worthy comments.

So, while I share the revulsion at Limpy's bile, I think suing him is probably the wrong strategy. It also would allow his sponsors to get off the hook since they woudl say that they are going to keep advertising until its decided whether Limpy did something culpable.

[TexasTowelie]

17. Insurance?

That's a very socialist concept.

[Loudmxr]

3. There is the problem of NYTvs Sullivan

The SCOTUS has decided that public figures have less rights than .... most of you.

Fluke is a public figure..like me.

So lets go down the standing of a public figure willing to sue.

False check
Knowingly false..check
Said with malice ..Check

Yeah she has a really good case.

Go for the 400M$. Go for it girl.

[Raven]

8. Sullivan was an elected sheriff as I recall. How

is this young woman a public figure... because she gave testimony once? I'm not sure you are correct on this.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. I agree - Fluke isn't a public figure. She is merely a citizen

who exercised her right to speak out about an important national issue. That doesn't make her a public figure per N.Y.T. v. Sullivan.

On reflection - one could argue that she is a "limited purpose" public figure because she voluntarily got involved in the controversy by testifying before Congress. But that doesn't mean she loses; it means only that she would have to establish "actual malice" (a knowing false statement or reckless disregard for the truth as opposed to mere negligence). Actual malice is Limbaugh's trademark.

[onenote]

13. actually she almost certainly is a "limited purpose public figure" under SCOTUS precedent

A limited purpose public figure is someone who has "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." Merely speaking out on an issue probably isn't enough. Appearing before a Congressional panel and being interviewed on television etc. -- that's considered thrusting oneself to the forefront of this controversy.

Does that mean that it would be impossible to win a judgment against Limpy? No. But it would be very hard and while I think there are good arguments, it would take a long time. There would be a lot of discovery and it would be intrusive. While I would think (and hope) there would be lawyers willing to take the case pro bono, this isn't something that would be resolved in a matter of months -- it could be years.

Not sure it makes sense -- as noted above and others have pointed out, it risks taking the focus away from the issue -- ready availability of birth control -- and makes it about such matters as how to set a price on the damage that Limpy's bile caused Ms. Fluke.

I doubt she sues. But I could be wrong.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. Oh, I don't think she will sue, or even that she necessarily should.

Going up against someone like Limbaugh, with his almost unlimited financial resources, would be a long and miserable experience, even with a very solid case, which I think she might have. I was talking more about the theoretical merits of the case. Right now all the negative publicity Limbaugh is getting might achieve more positive results, and Fluke is being regarded as the hero of the situation. The more crap he throws at her the better and stronger she seems. I don't think she needs to sue him, although he absolutely, richly deserves it.

[ShadowLiberal]

16. Just getting media attention is enough to be declared a public figure

A gay man saved President Ford's life, then had his life ruined by the media when they correctly reported that he was gay. His family disowned him for a while after learning he was gay, even President Ford snubbed him once the story came out. The guy sued the paper that first reported he was gay, but the court ruled he had no case because by choosing to save the president he chose to make himself a public figure, which makes it almost impossible to sue for slander.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Sipple

The above is a link to his wiki bio about the story.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. That was a different situation. Sipple didn't sue for slander

but for invasion of privacy. The elements of the two torts are entirely different - since Sipple was already in the news his sexual orientation was part of the story, and therefore the the court held the newspapers hadn't invaded his privacy. The idea of a "public figure" is limited to the tort of defamation because First Amendment issues are in play - someone who has become a public figure either in general, by voluntarily becoming a politician or a celebrity, or for limited purposes, such as, e.g., testifying before Congress, is not precluded from suing but only has the greater burden of proving that the publisher of the defamatory statement acted with actual malice (knowing the statement was false or making it in willful disregard of the truth). This is to protect media outlets from the consequences of criticizing public figures, while still requiring them to avoid outright lying. But it doesn't apply to invasion of privacy cases. The statements made about Stipple were not actually false, so defamation principles wouldn't apply.

[polichick]

4. Where's Gloria Allred?? I'm surprised that some high-profile attorney...

...hasn't offered - or maybe someone has.


I'd like to see Mike Papantonio take the case!

[peace frog]

5. and be sure to make the donation in Limbaugh's name

and give him full credit for the huge $$$$ donation to Planned Parenthood. Then send a heads-up to Current, MSNBC, Stewart & Colbert so they can announce Limbaugh's generosity on air.

[LiberalFighter]

6. His sponsors need to suffer financially too.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. It's a perfect slander case.

He called her a "slut" and a "prostitute." In defamation cases, there are four kinds of false statements that are traditionally considered "slander per se," which means that you don't even have to prove damages because the statements are so negative that damages are presumed. These are: (1) that the person (the plaintiff) has committed a serious crime; (2) that the person suffers from a "loathsome disease" (at common law, this usually meant something like syphilis or leprosy); (3) that the person was incompetent in his business, trade or craft; and (4) that the person, if a woman, is "unchaste." Sandra Fluke is a law student. This stuff is certainly fresh in her mind. She has a slam-dunk case - if she wants to tangle with Rush Limbaugh, which would be a particularly unpleasant sort of mud-wrestling.

[GoCubsGo]

9. Mike Papantonio says it's not.

He was on Stephanie Miller's show this morning. He said she probably would not win, thanks to "freedom of speech" issues. He's a lawyer who has dealt with such issues, so I'm taking his word for it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. This time I disagree with Papantonio.

Sometimes people can wiggle out of a defamation case by claiming that they were merely stating an opinion, and Limbaugh would probably claim he was speaking in hyperbole to make a point and he never intended to claim that Fluke is, in fact, a slut or a prostitute. But if you go back and listen to everything he has said about her over the past three days, it goes way beyond an opinion statement. He flat-out said she was a "slut" or a "prostitute" because she said was "having so much sex" that she couldn't afford birth control pills. Not only did he call her a slut, in the complete absence of evidence that she is a prostitute (the imputation of unchastity to a woman, a classic example of slander per se), but he falsely stated that she said she was having so much sex she couldn't afford birth control. Now he's claiming he was just being deliberately absurd. But he was clearly trying to discredit this woman and deter her from speaking out by calling her names and making false statements about her. Classic defamation. I think she wins.

The courts have held many times that the First Amendment does not protect defamatory speech.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

15. I agree this is absolutely slander per se.

slam dunk for her. Even better for the plaintiff than ordinary slander.

In slander per se cases, damages are assumed to be assessed against the defendants, and do not have to be proven by the plaintiff, because the slander is in an especially egregious class.

Her testimony had nothing to do with sexual activity at all. It was about a friend of hers who needed BC pills as a hormonal treatment and eventually lost an ovary b/c she could not get them covered by Georgetown University.

Yes I am a lawyer but I do not play one on TV like Spader.