Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onenote

(42,373 posts)
12. My guess is that you are not a lawyer.
Fri Mar 2, 2012, 07:23 PM
Mar 2012

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.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Sandra Fluke needs to sue...»Reply #12