# 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:** 4
**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, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/61 "2012-03-08T19:22:53Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > That’s still not a claim of fact that she is an actual prostitute. No, just that she aspires to be one. > [@Simplicio](#): > > The fact that he talks about the taxpayers paying her to have sex makes it pretty clear he isn’t saying she’s a literal prostitute. Does it matter to a prostitute who is handing over the money? ---
**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, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/62 "2012-03-08T19:26:18Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > She doesn’t have to prove she’s chaste, but the defense could defeat her claim by proving she isn’t. Because the court was applying the doctrine of _defamation per se_, the plaintiff enjoyed a presumption that it was false _because lack of chastity was an implication of the use of “slut” and made the word actionable._ In an ordinary defamation claim (not a per se claim) she would not enjoy the presumption of falsity, but the defense would have to prove she was actually promiscuous (or whatever definition the court chose to apply). Bingo. The thinking behind “slut” being defamation per se was that it was an actual accusation of lack of chastity. When I asked earlier what, from an objective standpoint, a slut was, it was to illustrate this problem. At common law, a woman is presumed chaste, and asserting she’s engaged in fornication was actionable. In today’s world, however, I don’t think that presumption is workable. But if we wish to apply it to her benefit, then she must live up to ye olde standard: not guilty of fornication, i.e., sexual intercourse between unmarried persons. ---
**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, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/63 "2012-03-08T19:28:46Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > No, just that she aspires to be one. > > Does it matter to a prostitute who is handing over the money? Sort of, yes. If it’s a film producer, you’re an actress. When a third party pays for sex, it’s not always prostitution. And when a scientist testifies that nicotine has no bad health effects and then receives a fat check from RY Reynolds, some might say he has prostituted himself. He can’t sue them, pointing out he never took it up the ass from a Reynolds exec. ---
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/64 "2012-03-08T19:36:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sort of, yes. If it’s a film producer, you’re an actress. When a third party pays for sex, it’s not always prostitution. > > And when a scientist testifies that nicotine has no bad health effects and then receives a fat check from RY Reynolds, some might say he has prostituted himself. He can’t sue them, pointing out he never took it up the ass from a Reynolds exec. Granted if she is in porn she can accept money from someone else for having sex. However in this case I see no insinuation that she wants to engage in professional porn but rather from this and other comments that she is a prostitute. In the case of the researcher the context is clearly not one of having sex for money. Limbaugh made this explicitly about having sex. ---
**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, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/65 "2012-03-08T19:40:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > She explicitly says she favors the regulation made pursuant to the Affordable Care Act that mandates contraception coverage. And that regulation requires that insurance companies pay for her contraceptives. > > Right? From her testimony, we don’t even know if she uses contraceptives personally. Right? ---
**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, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/66 "2012-03-08T19:48:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You know, I hate how this happens. I’m spending time and effort defending the words of a buffoon, an idiot, a drooling fool. > > And why? Because it’s not enough to say he’s a fool. No, no – he has to be guilty of some sort of civil wrong, some actionable tort. > > He’s not. You can’t twist it to make it so. He’s a slack-jawed mouthbreather - why isn’t that sufficient for everyone? I can nod happily and agree, and stop defending this waste of oxygen. If Limbaugh was just some tool sitting at a bar spouting his crap then I’d agree. However, Limbaugh has an audience in the many millions. I cannot find it now but someone had compiled a screenshot of Twitter messages from conservatives who jumped on Limbaugh’s bandwagon and were spewing even more vile hatred towards Sandra Fluke. Other media also picked up on this and ran with it continuing the slander of Ms. Fluke: > [@](#): > > -Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin denounced Fluke as a “femme-agogu tool.” > > -The right-wing site Jawa Report illustrated a post about Fluke with a picture of a tattoo that reads “Semen Demon.” > > -Pam Geller wrote that Fluke is “banging it five times a day” and that “calling this whore a slut was a softball.” > > -Accuracy in Media’s Don Irvine called her a “skank.” > > -Former CPAC Blogger of The Year, Ace of Spades, called Fluke a “shiftless rent-a-cooch from East Whoreville.” > > -Michelle Malkin guest blogger Doug Ross used “Got Slut?” in a headline and suggested Fluke suffered from “nymphomania.” > > -Dana Loesch complained the controversy surrounding Limbaugh’s three-day “slut” campaign represented a “manufactured” story. (This, before Limbaugh responded to the “manufactured” story by issuing a rare public statement.) > > SOURCE: [Conservative media's response to Sandra Fluke testimony - Boing Boing](http://boingboing.net/2012/03/08/conservative-medias-response.html) Bet we could find more if we looked. Also, Limbaugh did not just make one off-color remark once. Far from it. He ran with it and continued his slander over the course of days. That is why this should matter and amounts to a civil wrong. ---
**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, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/67 "2012-03-08T19:53:02Z")
> [@](#): > > Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. > > We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. She’s testifying on their behalf and she’s grateful that it will meet the needs of many women: not that it will meet _her needs_ (or as she could have phrased it if she were a party, “our needs”). That said, I think she stands to gain from this. She’s demonstrated legal knowledge and capacity for public speaking. I think the only way she could pursue a suit at this juncture is if she could prove that she lost out financially due to his comments (future employment perhaps - which as I said, seems unlikely). ---
**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, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/68 "2012-03-08T19:55:37Z")
Wait…Pam Geller, the “Bikini Pundit”, said that? Irony can’t keep up with these people… ---
**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, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/69 "2012-03-08T20:01:44Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > No, just that she aspires to be one. No, he isn’t saying that literally either. He’s using hyperbole to ridicule her policy position. And there’s no mistaking that. > [@](#): > > Does it matter to a prostitute who is handing over the money? That’s Rush Limbaugh’s argument. But either way, there’s no way to reasonably interpret his remarks as a statement of fact that she’s an actual prostitute. > [@Bricker](#): > > You know, I hate how this happens. I’m spending time and effort defending the words of a buffoon, an idiot, a drooling fool. > > And why? Because it’s not enough to say he’s a fool. No, no – he has to be guilty of some sort of civil wrong, some actionable tort. > > He’s not. You can’t twist it to make it so. He’s a slack-jawed mouthbreather - why isn’t that sufficient for everyone? I can nod happily and agree, and stop defending this waste of oxygen. I find myself in the same position as Bricker, even though Bricker is well-known as a conservative, religious Republican and I’m a liberal, atheist Democrat. One, I might add, who despises Rush Limbaugh. But what Limbaugh has done here, regardless of how reprehensible it is, is not defamation. He’s not making a statement of fact that any reasonable person would understand to mean that Fluke is a working prostitute. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > That is why this should matter and amounts to a civil wrong. Saying that something should be a civil wrong and concluding that it constitutes defamation under current law is two different things. If we were going to have a discussion about a law making it actionable to trigger public harassment of an individual through traditional and online media, that might be an interesting discussion. What if there were a cause of action for ridiculing someone in public? Would we give Ghyslain Razaa a cause of action? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/70 "2012-03-08T20:04:15Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Your quote contradicts your point. No reasonable listener could possibly interpret that quote to mean that Limbaugh is stating as a fact that Fluke is actually a prostitute, that is, exchanging money for sex in violation of anti-prostitution laws. It is clear that he is analogizing something else to prostitution. > > No reasonable person is going to hear that and think that they can call up Fluke and ask for her rates and go over to her brothel and have sex with her in exchange for money. You seem to be claiming that explicitly calling somebody by name a prostitute who wants to be paid to have sex is a defense _against_ slander? Limbaugh didn’t say Fluke is like a prostitute. He said she is a prostitute and then went on to say that she wants to be paid to have sex, in case anyone who was listening wasn’t aware of what a prostitute is. If Fluke had been arrested for prostitution and Limbaugh were testifying against her in court, he couldn’t have made his statement any clearer. ---
**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, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/71 "2012-03-08T20:10:48Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You seem to be claiming that explicitly calling somebody by name a prostitute who wants to be paid to have sex is a defense _against_ slander? If I call Limbaugh a douchebag and then go on to cite all the reasons that he is a douchebag, then are you going to thing that I am making a statement of fact that Limbaugh is a rubber device used to administer vaginal irrigation? > [@](#): > > If Fluke had been arrested for prostitution and Limbaugh were testifying against her in court, he couldn’t have made his statement any clearer. You don’t believe that. ---
**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, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/72 "2012-03-08T20:26:07Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If Fluke had been arrested for prostitution and Limbaugh were testifying against her in court, he couldn’t have made his statement any clearer. Does right-wing idiocy create cognitive blindness in left-wing listeners? You’ve got to be kidding. His statement, used in a trial against Fluke for prostitution, could have been much clearer. Q: So, Mr. Limbaugh, you testified that Ms. Fluke is a prostitute? A: Yes. Q: And by that you meant that she was paid money for the act of sex? A: Yes. Q: And who paid her this money? A: You, me, the American taxpayers. Q: And with whom was the sex act consummated? A: Uh… Q: I assume you don’t mean, sir, that Ms. Fluke had sex with you, me, and the American taxpayers? A: Uhh… ---
**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, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/73 "2012-03-08T20:30:34Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > From her testimony, we don’t even know if she uses contraceptives personally. > > Right? Correct, although it’s not a weak inference, since she said “we” students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result of the lack of contraception coverage. She includes herself in that list, although perhaps we might instead infer that she merely wishes that contraception were covered and her financial, emotional, and medical burdens have arisen from her lack of contraception, not the necessity of paying for her contraception out of pocket. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/74 "2012-03-08T20:30:42Z")
He wants video. ---
**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, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/75 "2012-03-08T20:31:56Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I find myself in the same position as Bricker, even though Bricker is well-known as a conservative, religious Republican and I’m a liberal, atheist Democrat. One, I might add, who despises Rush Limbaugh. > > But what Limbaugh has done here, regardless of how reprehensible it is, is not defamation. He’s not making a statement of fact that any reasonable person would understand to mean that Fluke is a working prostitute. Are you talking merely about the prostitute angle, or about Limbaugh’s comments in general? Because I think the potential exists of a valid claim under the “slut” line for the reasons set forth above. Not so much on the prostitute bit. ---
**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, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/76 "2012-03-08T20:32:56Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Granted if she is in porn she can accept money from someone else for having sex. However in this case I see no insinuation that she wants to engage in professional porn but rather from this and other comments that she is a prostitute. > > In the case of the researcher the context is clearly not one of having sex for money. Limbaugh made this explicitly about having sex. But Limbaugh ALSO made it clear that she wasn’t accepting money to engage in sex, but rather asking for money to pay for contraception so she could have sex. That’s not prostitution. You can’t jump on the “Limbaugh made it clear” wagon when it suits you and then jump off when something else he made clear doesn’t suit you. For that matter, Liimbaugh also made it clear he wants video – why isn’t he analyzed as a porn producer, then? ---
**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, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/77 "2012-03-08T20:39:30Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > No, he isn’t saying that literally either. He’s using hyperbole to ridicule her policy position. And there’s no mistaking that. > > That’s Rush Limbaugh’s argument. But either way, there’s no way to reasonably interpret his remarks as a statement of fact that she’s an actual prostitute. > [@Bricker](#): > > Does right-wing idiocy create cognitive blindness in left-wing listeners? > > You’ve got to be kidding. His statement, used in a trial against Fluke for prostitution, could have been much clearer. > > Q: So, Mr. Limbaugh, you testified that Ms. Fluke is a prostitute? > A: Yes. > Q: And by that you meant that she was paid money for the act of sex? > A: Yes. > Q: And who paid her this money? > A: You, me, the American taxpayers. > Q: And with whom was the sex act consummated? > A: Uh… > Q: I assume you don’t mean, sir, that Ms. Fluke had sex with you, me, and the American taxpayers? > > A: Uhh… How far does this go as a defense to libel? I can call someone any name in the book and as long as I can claim no reasonable person could think I was being literal then what I said is ok? It does not matter that my comments are clearly slanderous/libelous in nature? ---
**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, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/78 "2012-03-08T20:41:32Z")
If no reasonable person could think you were being literal then your comments _can’t_ have been defamatory in nature. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/79 "2012-03-08T20:42:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Are you talking merely about the prostitute angle, or about Limbaugh’s comments in general? Because I think the potential exists of a valid claim under the “slut” line for the reasons set forth above. Not so much on the prostitute bit. The [Legal Satyricon](http://randazza.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/for-the-last-time-no-sandra-fluke-does-not-have-a-valid-defamation-claim-against-rush-limbaugh/) also examined this issue, but did not reach your conclusion. In short, courts may be less willing to extend defamatory per se status to unchastity in light of evolving sexual mores. I think this is correct. What is your intuition as to the propriety of holding someone liable for defamation per se if they said “So-and-so has an inappropriate number of sexual partners.”? But it seems to me that this is just a less inflammatory way of saying “So-and-so is a slut.” It is well-settled that the First Amendment does not only protect courteous speech, so speech communicating the same content needs to enjoy the same protection. ---
**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, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/80 "2012-03-08T20:43:46Z")
> [@](#): > > She includes herself in that list, although perhaps we might instead infer that she merely wishes that contraception were covered and her financial, emotional, and medical burdens have arisen from her lack of contraception, not the necessity of paying for her contraception out of pocket. While this is less ambiguous than the other statements, I think the usage may not be inclusive but affiliative… She’s identifying with the students that “have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens”, just as someone that supported the Denver Broncos could have experienced a crushing defeat. It’s strange, because I really don’t care if she has ever had penetrative sex at all… I have a feeling that her speech will be dissected for at least another week though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117.md?page=5)