# Did Limbaugh slander Sandra Fluke? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 8, 2012, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117 "2012-03-08T04:58:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/21 "2012-03-08T14:37:38Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Considering that Fluke’s testimony wasn’t even ABOUT contraceptive use of “the Pill”, but about therapeutic use for dysmenorrhea, Limbaugh’s characterization of her WAS provably false. To the contrary, her statement referred to support without limitation for the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. As supporting examples, she described one case of polycystic ovarian syndrome (which, interestingly, was covered by Georgetown’s policy because it was not intended to prevent pregnancy, although she pointed out that other religious institutions did not draw that line); endometriosis (as you mention); and even mistaken assumptions (female who declined to seek medical assistance after sexual assault because she wrongly assumed it would not be covered). She certainly did not mention having loads of sex as a supporting example, but neither was her support for the regulation limited in any way to the medical aspects of it. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/22 "2012-03-08T14:39:42Z")
> [@Turek](#): > > That’s one of the more ridiculous things I’ve read today. Not really. There is a third category for the purpose of defamation law. [Limited purpose public figures](http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3) are those people who become famous because they associate themselves with a cause and become identified with that cause. (Think Cindy Sheehan before she went off the rails, [Terry Rakolta](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Rakolta), or the Tillman family.) As long as any jokes and comments are about these people within the context of their public activities, they’re fair game. Once you cross into the person’s private life, you’re wandering into defamation and unsafe territory. > [@Interrobang](#): > > I am so totally not a lawyer, but my impression is that this would fall into the realm of legal puffery. No reasonable person would draw the same conclusion that Rush did. No reasonable person would take what he said as factual. The claim also lacks specificity. > > It seems this falls into the same range as a restaurant advertising their “world-famous cheeseburgers!” Nobody truly believes that someone in Akkra would recognize that restaurant. I’m not a lawyer, either, but I have studied defamation law. If Ms. Fluke decides to sue, her lawyer can make the argument that between Limbaugh’s status as a Republican kingmaker (based on the public actions of various Republicans, who know they can’t afford to piss him off if they want to keep their jobs) and his high ratings, as well as comments left on his Facebook page, that there are people who take him and his opinions seriously. He’s an entertainer, true, but he’s an entertainer who is capable of shaping public opinion on a fairly broad scale. But if I were her, I’d let the case be tried in the court of public opinion. Defamation, as others have pointed out, is a bitch to prove in court. Better to let his advertisers bail and better to let him hang himself with his own words and actions than to try the case in court and risk him becoming even stronger if he wins. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/23 "2012-03-08T15:23:33Z")
> [@dzero](#): > > I’m really surprised that no one has mentioned that truth is an absolute, affirmative defense to a charge of slander. 😃 🆒 😃 🆒 Kidding aside, this is the problem for her in bringing suit. Her sex life would be thrown open to discovery. In practice, of course, Limbaugh might be better advised to settle quickly than to drag out a messy discovery process that would risk alienating advertisers even further. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/24 "2012-03-08T15:38:44Z")
I’m inclined to agree that this isn’t libel. However it’s moronic and dickish in the extreme, so I’m trying to enjoy watching Limbaugh get what he deserves. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/25 "2012-03-08T15:47:32Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > I dunno. He explains what he means by prostitute, and while his explanation is pretty retarded, I think the context makes it pretty clear he wasn’t calling her a prostitute in the usual sense. Actual prostitutes don’t get paid by Congressional Legislation. This is my analysis of the situation. He wasn’t saying that she literally has sex with men in exchange for money. He’s expressing an opinion that wanting coverage for her contraceptives is comparable to prostitution. > [@](#): > > He did explicitly call her a slut though. Dunno how actionable that is. That’s also an opinion. Defamation claims are based on false statements of fact, not opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/26 "2012-03-08T16:12:31Z")
While “I think she is a slut” is a statement of opinion, it’s certainly arguable that “she is a slut” purports to be a statement of objective fact. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/27 "2012-03-08T16:14:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > While “I think she is a slut” is a statement of opinion, it’s certainly arguable that “she is a slut” purports to be a statement of objective fact. Really? Objectively, then, what is a slut? ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/28 "2012-03-08T16:19:10Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > While “I think she is a slut” is a statement of opinion, it’s certainly arguable that “she is a slut” purports to be a statement of objective fact. I guess, but “slut” is a pretty vaguely defined word, as opposed to “prostitute”, where everyone more or less agrees on the definition. Assuming she’s had at least one extra-marital sex partner, then in the eyes of someone like Santorumn, I imagine Fluke probably is a slut. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/29 "2012-03-08T16:20:10Z")
Rush certainly insuted Ms. Fluke and went too far in doing so… but slander? Not at all. The moment ANY person willingly stands up and makes controversial testimony before Congress, he/she becomes a public figure, and I dont see any way he/she can claim to be libelled or slandered when a media commentator insults him or her. This would hold true even if the person giving testimony agreed with me. If an ordinary Christian housewife gave testimony against abortion before a Congressional panel, I don’t believe she’d have any right to sue for slander or libel if Bill Maher called her “a fascist c–t.” in an HBO monologue. That would be vile and repulsive, but not slanderous. Once you put yourself in the public eye and make political statements, you’re fair game. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/30 "2012-03-08T16:24:50Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > The moment ANY person willingly stands up and makes controversial testimony before Congress, he/she becomes a public figure, and I dont see any way he/she can claim to be libelled or slandered when a media commentator insults him or her. The sad part of this whole thing is that the testimony she gave is considered controversial at all. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/31 "2012-03-08T16:30:17Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Rush certainly insuted Ms. Fluke and went too far in doing so… but slander? Not at all. > > The moment ANY person willingly stands up and makes controversial testimony before Congress, he/she becomes a public figure, and I dont see any way he/she can claim to be libelled or slandered when a media commentator insults him or her. > > This would hold true even if the person giving testimony agreed with me. If an ordinary Christian housewife gave testimony against abortion before a Congressional panel, I don’t believe she’d have any right to sue for slander or libel if Bill Maher called her “a fascist c–t.” in an HBO monologue. That would be vile and repulsive, but not slanderous. > > Once you put yourself in the public eye and make political statements, you’re fair game. Actually, you’re not “fair game” merely by testifying before Congress. But in any case, all the examples you give are statements of opinion. _That’s_ the reason they’re not defamatory. As an aside, broadcast statements are potentially libelous, not slanderous. Slander refers to ephemeral speech, not speech that is recorded or broadcast. In the interest of keeping things simple, it might be better just to refer to defamation, rather than libel or slander. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/32 "2012-03-08T16:37:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Really? Objectively, then, what is a slut? What’s “a threatening gesture”? From the OED: > [@](#): > > a woman who has many casual sexual partners. From Random House: > [@](#): > > an immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute. From Collins: > [@](#): > > a dirty slatternly woman; an immoral woman From Merriam-Webster: > [@](#): > > a promiscuous woman; especially: prostitute Anyway, it appears this has been done before, and is actionable, at least in Illinois, Louisiana, and a couple of other states. > [@](#): > > Further, after considering the plaintiff’s allegations, as stated in the complaint, we find that they fall within this statute’s category of statements that are actionable per se. As previously stated, the statute applies when persons use, utter or publish words which amount to a charge of fornication or adultery. Here, the plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the defendants, by using the word “slut,” implied that she was “unchaste.” The complaint thus alleged, in effect, that the defendants published words that falsely accused the plaintiff of fornication. The defendants’ statements fall within this statutorily created category of statements that are considered actionable per se. Bryson v. News Am. Publications, Inc., 174 Ill. 2d 77. > [@](#): > > We find that Curklin Atkins engaged in an intentional long-term campaign of verbal bullying, ridicule and humiliation targeted at his student. We hold that calling a female law student a “slut” is defamatory per se. Smith v. Atkins, 622 So. 2d 795. Apparently, this is such a popular topic it has its own ALR article: > [@](#): > > **Libel and slander: Actionability of charge of being a “slut,” “bitch,” or “son of a bitch”** > > In various contexts, charging a female with being a “slut” has been regarded as actionable.IllBryson v. News America Publications, Inc., 174 Ill. 2d 77, 220 Ill. Dec. 195, 672 N.E.2d 1207, 25 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1321 (1996)To refer to one as a given man’s “slut” has been held actionable, on the ground that such a charge imputed unchastity, without more. The court in Kennenberg v Neff (1901) 74 Conn 62, 49 A 853, held that the lower court had correctly charged the jury, where the defendant had said of the plaintiff, “it is a pity if I can’t come up the street without being insulted by Westy’s old slut,” that to call a woman a “slut” was not actionable in itself, but that to charge a female with being some man’s “slut” involved a charge of a breach of chastity on her part, and was equivalent to charging her with being his mistress, and therefore actionable per se.In Freeman v Sanderson (1890) 123 Ind 264, 24 NE 239, the court held that a good cause of action had been pleaded where the female alleged that the following was said of her: “I caught you and her in the kitchen at it, and I caught you. . . on her in the kitchen; and you. . . met her at the old house and you know she is nothing but a whoring slut.” The court reasoned that the innuendo showed that the words were intended to mean and were understood to mean that the plaintiff was of unchaste character and guilty of the crime of fornication.See Wilson v Runyon (1834, Ohio) Wright 651, supra § 5, ovrld on other grounds Bucklin v State, 20 Ohio 18, in which the word “slut” was recognized to be actionable if tending to harm a woman in her occupation. 13 A.L.R.3d 1286. I assume none of these cases dealt with public figures, limited or otherwise, though. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/33 "2012-03-08T16:38:51Z")
> [@](#): > > and she herself will benefit from this regulation. I don’t think that’s a necessary correlate from her statement. She’s saying that for women that are on public interest scholarships that it would entail an entire summer’s salary, not that women that consume as much contraceptives as her would expend an entire summer’s salary. Though I can imagine that this would infuriate Limbaugh, as a “summer’s salary” translates into several million (rather than $3000) for him. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/34 "2012-03-08T16:46:48Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Actually, you’re not “fair game” merely by testifying before Congress. I was going to say the same thing, but he did restrict it a bit by saying you’re fair game if you’re testifying to Congress about a controversial topic. That’s less unreasonable. Saying that everybody who testifies to Congress is now a public figure goes too far - there have to be thousands of people who do that every year, and most are relatively unknown to the public at large, so it’s unfair to say that all of them are now public figures and have to meet this very high standard to prove libel or slander. Fluke did testify on a controversial topic and she was a committed activist, so there’s a somewhat stronger case that she is a public figure. ---
**Author:** ![Spiff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiff/32/9852_2.png) [@Spiff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiff)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/35 "2012-03-08T17:03:46Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > As an aside, broadcast statements are potentially libelous, not slanderous. Slander refers to ephemeral speech, not speech that is recorded or broadcast. In the interest of keeping things simple, it might be better just to refer to defamation, rather than libel or slander. Actually, defamatory broadcast speech is called libelous solely because it’s presumed that it was written down before it was read aloud on air, such as a newscaster reading a script from a teleprompter. So, in this case, I’d still say that if Rush’s words were indeed defamatory, that this would be properly called slander, as he did not read from a written script (the words came spontaneously from his own diseased brain, right?). \ ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/36 "2012-03-08T17:09:45Z")
I don’t think she ever did testify before Congress, did she? She was invited to but then blocked by Darrel Issa, and then later gave an address to House Dems. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/37 "2012-03-08T17:14:53Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I was going to say the same thing, but he did restrict it a bit by saying you’re fair game if you’re testifying to Congress about a controversial topic. That’s less unreasonable. Saying that everybody who testifies to Congress is now a public figure goes too far - there have to be thousands of people who do that every year, and most are relatively unknown to the public at large, so it’s unfair to say that all of them are now public figures and have to meet this very high standard to prove libel or slander. Fluke did testify on a controversial topic and she was a committed activist, so there’s a somewhat stronger case that she is a public figure. For the record she did not testify to Congress. This was a mock hearing or press conference by the Dems. ETA: Beaten by **Simplicio** ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/38 "2012-03-08T17:18:03Z")
FWIW Limbaugh (as of March 5) [launched 46 personal attacks on Fluke](http://mediamatters.org/research/201203050022) over the course of several days. Not sure how much it matters in a slander case but at the least Limbaugh does not look able to say it was a one-time slip of the tongue. He double and tripled down on his comments about her. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/39 "2012-03-08T17:22:51Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Anyway, it appears this has been done before, and is actionable, at least in Illinois, Louisiana, and a couple of other states. > > Bryson v. News Am. Publications, Inc., 174 Ill. 2d 77. > > Smith v. Atkins, 622 So. 2d 795. > > Apparently, this is such a popular topic it has its own ALR article: > > 13 A.L.R.3d 1286. > > I assume none of these cases dealt with public figures, limited or otherwise, though. Thanks for these cites **RNATB**. Given your thorough analysis, with legal citations, vs. **Brickers** uncited opinion and wordplay, I’m going to go with your analysis. ---
**Author:** ![justrob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9adbd/32.png) [@justrob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justrob)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/40 "2012-03-08T17:25:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Really? Objectively, then, what is a slut? I believe that, technically, a slut is someone who will sleep with other people but not you. (the generic you not the Bricker you) ^this joke stolen from a comedian I can’t remember who though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117.md?page=3)