# 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:** 6
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/101 "2012-03-08T21:43:10Z")
For some clarification to all this: Is the main debate here over whether this is libel per se or just libel in general? From what I gather here a libel per se case would be the only one worth pursuing here because (if she won) she could get a damage award without having to show actual damage. However, the claim for libel per se seems in doubt. Would a straight libel case be “easier” to win? I realize her showing actual damages in this case would probably be far fetched but in theory, if she could, would she stand a better chance in this instance? (Note: really asking) ---
**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, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/102 "2012-03-08T21:44:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Thanks for an excellent link, **Kimmy**. I particularly liked: > > > [@](#): > > > > House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer came out and said that Sandra Fluke should sue Limbaugh for defamation for famously calling her a “slut.” (source). And a Philadelphia attorney, Max Kennerly, told his local newspaper that he thinks Fluke has a case. (source) > > > > She has no such thing, and shame on those who say that she does. It isn’t that Rush Limbaugh needs to be shielded from these barbs. It isn’t that Sandra Fluke actually might be emboldened to sue. The problem with these uneducated and erroneous statements about the viability of such a suit is that they act like a blizzard wind blowing through the marketplace of ideas. They spread misinformation among the proletariat, who didn’t have the benefit of an education in Constitutional law, and consequently believe Fluke might have a claim based on Rush’s impolitic statements. And the next time one of these moronic proles gets butthurt about something someone says, they’ll be right on the phone to the closest bottom feeding lawyer they can find. > > I breathlessly await **Euphonious Polemic** ’s reaction to the analysis in that link. It seems that your quote has an opinion that a suit would not be viable, and that such a suit would embolden others to sue others (using bottom feeding lawyers) I see phrases in the cite like "some opportunistic ambulance-chaser ", “Butthurt is not defamation.” I see an opinion that Fluke is a public figure because she testified before congress. That nobody outside of congress had heard of her before Rush’s comments seems to be moot with this author. I see an opinion that calling Fluke a prostitute who takes money for sex was just “rhetorical hyperbole” In short, I see a lot of opinions. Many people (including a court perhaps), might not share those opinions. ---
**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, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/103 "2012-03-08T21:57:02Z")
How about this: > [@](#): > > 1. Limbaugh: “It Was Sandra Fluke Who Said That She Was Having So Much Sex, She Can’t Afford It.” Later, Limbaugh claimed, “It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex, she can’t afford it.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/2/12, via Media Matters] > > 2. Limbaugh Again Claims That “By Her Own Admission … Sandra Fluke Is Having So Much Sex That She Can’t Afford It.” Limbaugh later repeated the claim, saying, “By her own admission, in her own words, Sandra Fluke is having so much sex that she can’t afford it. She’s going broke, I believe she said.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/2/12, via Media Matters] > > \ > > Fluke Did Not Discuss Her Sex Life During Her Testimony > > Fluke’s Testimony Concentrated On The Danger Of Medical Conditions Untreated By Contraception. When Fluke testified before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, much of her testimony was about women who take birth control for medical reasons, including the story of a friend who was taking birth control to prevent cysts from growing on her ovaries and ultimately had to have an ovary removed when she could no longer afford birth control pills. [[C-SPAN.org](http://C-SPAN.org), 2/23/12, via Media Matters] > > SOURCE: [http://mediamatters.org/research/201203050022](http://mediamatters.org/research/201203050022) So, clearly untrue (it is not in the recorded testimony) and slanderous because it paints her as a floozy. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Knig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@Typo\_Knig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Knig)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/104 "2012-03-09T02:06:57Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > [Slight hijack]I read that wondering “Does this guy get _paid_ to write things like this or is he just a blogger on Washington Post’s space?” Then I read he’s won two Pulitzers. I couldn’t be more anti-Limbaugh in this matter, but that opening was good as neither humor or as satire; it was just discombobulated neener-neenering.[/slight hijack] He’s a humor columnist who writes a weekly column in the Washington Post Magazine, does a comic strip with his son, has monthly on-line chats, and writes the occasional longer article mostly for the Magazine. He took a buyout so he’s working less than he used to. When he’s good he’s amazing! Sometimes he’s so-so. Now and again he lets his views take over the funny. If you read the monthly chat to which the Limbaugh piece was a weekly update, you’ll see a column of his that was spiked. The humor fell really flat until you found out - outside of the column - that he set the whole thing up in advance. [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_weingarten) mentions his Pulitzer Prize columns. He also wrote very moving columns about a [small town in Alaska he picked at random from an atlas](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601144.html), a [town in Nevada he proclaimed “The Armpit of America”,](http://byliner.com/gene-weingarten/stories/why-not-the-worst) and a [child’s entertainer with growing-up issues](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011801434.html) But he is more than happy to do the neener-neener thing. IMNSHO the only thing that saves his anti-Limbaugh screed is the links to things Limbaugh actually did. Back to Torts class! ---
**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 9, 2012, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/105 "2012-03-09T03:35:06Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > 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. I don’t think it actually seems that way to you. “So-and-so has an inappropriate number of sexual partners” is clearly a subjective statement. Almost by definition, there is no _appropriate_ number of sexual partners. It clearly raises the same defamation _per se_ presumption as calling somebody a slut, but as I said, I don’t know anything about Fluke and certainly I’m not qualified to comment on her chastity (or lack thereof). While the First Amendment may not “only protect courteous speech”, SCOTUS has eviscerated the fighting words doctrine but it certainly hasn’t gotten rid of it. [QUOTE=Bricker] Thanks for an excellent link, Kimmy. [/QUOTE] Seriously? It’s a fun read, but you would have torn this rubbish apart if somebody had posted it on the Dope in support of the conclusion the author reaches. The author lays out the reasons why Fluke may have a case for defamation per se, and then handwaves all of them away without any supporting citations (or citations that are utterly irrelevant). For example: > [@](#): > > The term “slut” has different meanings to different people. C.f. McCabe v. Rattiner, 814 F.2d 839, 842 (1st Cir. 1987) (finding that the term “scam” “means different things to different people . . . and there is not a single usage in common phraseology. While some connotations of the word may encompass criminal behavior, others do not. The lack of precision makes the assertion ‘X is a scam’ incapable of being proven true or false.”); Lauderback v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 741 F.2d 193, 196 (8th Cir. 1984) (insurance agent referred to as a “crook”). “Clearly, if the statement was not capable of being verified as false, there could be no liability for defamation.” Woodward v. Weiss, 932 F. Supp. 723, 726 (D.S.C. 1996). So… “scam” and “crook” have no settled meaning, and the writer asserts that slut doesn’t have one either; thus, end of story. Mmmkay. > [@](#): > > What is the standard for someone to accurately and factually be described as a slut? Clerks suggests that if a woman performs oral sex on 37 men, that this might be the line. I really don’t know. I think that most women would say that the line is well below 37. Then again, I wouldn’t really call any woman a slut (unless it was a term of endearment – some women giggle when you call them that). I just don’t make value judgments about someone’s sexuality. If a woman or a man is promiscuous and they are happy, they can be a slut if they want (or not). > > In other words, “slut” is properly regarded as little more than a statement of opinion. The guy handily refutes his own assertion- that is, assuming a line of reasoning based on _Clerks_ needed refuting.. If most women would say the line is well below 37, then apparently there is a line to be drawn somewhere. > [@](#): > > However, I believe that this theory is a throwback to the days when women were essentially the sexual property of their controlling male. A daughter who was unchaste became less valuable to her father, and a wife that was unchaste was less valuable to her husband. > > The times they are a changin’… Well, it’s nice that he believes that, but what the fuck does his belief have to do with defamation law? If you weren’t paying attention, you might assume that Bryson and the other cases the author cites and then casually dismisses were decided in 1950. They weren’t; as the author notes, all three opinions were issued in the 1990s. > [@](#): > > Fluke was testifying before Congress, on National TV, in a debate that she willingly ran toward. She purposely dove into the spotlight, and if the spotlight burned her, that’s her problem — not my beloved Constitution’s problem. Fluke testified in front of a dozen House Democrats. I suppose in a technical sense she was “testifying before Congress”, but even that’s hardly a slam dunk. Hell, the only reason any of us know her name is because Rush _made_ her into news. Even if Fluke is a public figure, limited or otherwise, that’s not the end of the analysis. I doubt you would have trouble finding people who think his phrasing is evidence of malice. Again, the point is not that Limbaugh defamed Sandra Fluke. Maybe she’s a two-bit trash bag ho. The point is that anyone claiming that no-way, no-how did he defame her is jumping to conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/106 "2012-03-09T03:39:16Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > How about this: > > So, clearly untrue (it is not in the recorded testimony) and slanderous because it paints her as a floozy. Do you believe it is slanderous to call someone a slut? It is. But only because it is an accusation that the person is not chaste. To prevail, to speaker would have to show only that the target of his speech was unchaste. Meaning not a virgin. Do you understand this? In a civil suit, unlike a criminal trial, the plaintiff and the defendant can both be compelled to answer questions. Merely because she didn’t say in the recorded testimony anything about her sex life does not mean that the subject would be closed. If she sues, she must allege in her complaint that what he said was false. NOT merely that what he said was never mentioned in her testimony, but actually false. She must allege in her complaint that she is of chaste character. Do you understand this? If she does, he is entitled to ask her, under oath, if she is of chaste character. She cannot refuse to answer, unless her answer would expose her to criminal liability, and even then the jury is entitled to be told she did not answer and that they can conclude she would have answered “No.” Do you understand this? ---
**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 9, 2012, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/107 "2012-03-09T03:42:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you believe it is slanderous to call someone a slut? > > It is. But only because it is an accusation that the person is not chaste. To prevail, to speaker would have to show only that the target of his speech was unchaste. Meaning not a virgin. …if you’re in a jurisdiction that only recognizes defamation per se. That would be odd. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/108 "2012-03-09T04:35:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you believe it is slanderous to call someone a slut? First, in no way am I saying she has a case here; I honestly don’t know. However, I think you’re focusing on the wrong thing from WaM’s post. The money-quote is: > [@Rush Limbaugh](#): > > By her own admission, in her own words, Sandra Fluke is having so much sex that she can’t afford it. I don’t think he could defend against this by asking her if she’s chaste. I don’t even think there’s any question he could ask her to defend against this: if there are no words in which she’s said this, it’s a lie. But even if he could ask a question, it wouldn’t be, “Are you of chaste character?” It would have to be, “Are you having so much sex that you can’t afford it?” It does seem to me that, while the claim of prostitution was metaphorical and the claim of sluttiness is opinion, his claims about the frequency of her sex represent a reckless disregard for the truth on his part. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/109 "2012-03-09T04:48:13Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > First, in no way am I saying she has a case here; I honestly don’t know. However, I think you’re focusing on the wrong thing from WaM’s post. The money-quote is: > > I don’t think he could defend against this by asking her if she’s chaste. I don’t even think there’s any question he could ask her to defend against this: if there are no words in which she’s said this, it’s a lie. > > But even if he could ask a question, it wouldn’t be, “Are you of chaste character?” It would have to be, “Are you having so much sex that you can’t afford it?” > > It does seem to me that, while the claim of prostitution was metaphorical and the claim of sluttiness is opinion, his claims about the frequency of her sex represent a reckless disregard for the truth on his part. No. Because, as has been pointed out, if one is taking contraception, it is a fixed cost. So ANY amount of sex would trigger the cost that she can’t afford. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/110 "2012-03-09T07:25:55Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > _Hustler_ quoted Jerry Falwell as saying that he had sex with his mother in an outhouse. The Supreme Court said it was not defamatory. Reconcile that. The\* Hustler\* piece said "[Ad parody- not meant to be taken seriously"](http://library.blogs.law.pace.edu/files/2011/05/cartoon12.jpg) at the bottom. It was an obvious crude parody of a then well known ad campaign for Campari liqueur. ---
**Author:** ![A\_clever\_user\_name](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_clever\_user\_name](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_clever_user_name)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/111 "2012-03-09T11:27:52Z")
It seems to me that Limbaugh made statements he knew to be false, and did so maliciously intending to harm Ms. Fluke. The falsehoods are his completely inaccurate description of her testimony: “testifies she’s having so much sex she can’t afford her own birth control pills” “A Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they’re going broke” “Susan Fluke – or Sandra Fluke, whatever her name is – the Georgetown student who went before a congressional committee and said she’s having so much sex, she’s going broke buying contraceptives” “Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke said that it’s too expensive to have sex in law school without mandated insurance coverage” All statements made to intentionally cause harm and while knowing them to be false (or if he argues ignorance, I think it would easy to show reckless disregard). Pretty simple case, it seems to me. It’s a diversion to argue whether calling her a “slut” or a “prostitute” are hyperbolic devices or matters of opinion. He made false malicious statements intended to inflict harm. done. There are all also a slew of other (probably) easily refutable claims he makes, also meant to disparage and inflict harm. Here’s just two: He implies she was sexually active as an elementary school child: “Ms. Fluke, who bought your condoms in junior high? Who bought your condoms in the sixth grade?” Then he gets even more bizarre: “The fact that she wants to have repeated, never-ending, as-often-as-she-wants-it sex – given. No question about that.” I can’t even bring myself to quote the other stuff he says, but having read his actual commentary about her, and seeing how it’s pretty clearly based on what he knows to falsehood and pretty clearly intended to harm her, I think she would have an excellent case. On a loosely related note, after reading the media matters list of Limbaugh’s actual words, who could possibly listen to this guy, much less consider themselves a “ditto head”? I actually feel sick that someone who so wallows in hatred and repugnance can have a national following in the millions. It’s not just the rantings of some fringe lunatic - this guy is a “kingmaker” of the right? ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/112 "2012-03-09T12:03:16Z")
> [@Typo\_Knig](#): > > He’s a humor columnist who writes a weekly column in the Washington Post Magazine, does a comic strip with his son, has monthly on-line chats, and writes the occasional longer article mostly for the Magazine. He took a buyout so he’s working less than he used to. When he’s good he’s amazing! Sometimes he’s so-so. Now and again he lets his views take over the funny. If you read the monthly chat to which the Limbaugh piece was a weekly update, you’ll see a column of his that was spiked. The humor fell really flat until you found out - outside of the column - that he set the whole thing up in advance. [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_weingarten) mentions his Pulitzer Prize columns. He also wrote very moving columns about a [small town in Alaska he picked at random from an atlas](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601144.html), a [town in Nevada he proclaimed “The Armpit of America”,](http://byliner.com/gene-weingarten/stories/why-not-the-worst) and a [child’s entertainer with growing-up issues](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011801434.html) > > But he is more than happy to do the neener-neener thing. IMNSHO the only thing that saves his anti-Limbaugh screed is the links to things Limbaugh actually did. > > Back to Torts class! He’s also the guy most responsible for bringing us Dave Barry. So there is that, too. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/113 "2012-03-09T12:09:40Z")
Is the information provided in [this link](http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi#QID730) accurate? If so, couldn’t there be a case on the grounds that since her testimony did not reveal any private facts, but Limbaugh revealed that she was unchaste (since that is the legal definition of “slut”, apparently). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/114 "2012-03-09T14:09:52Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Is the information provided in [this link](http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi#QID730) accurate? > > If so, couldn’t there be a case on the grounds that since her testimony did not reveal any private facts, but Limbaugh revealed that she was unchaste (since that is the legal definition of “slut”, apparently). Wow. That is, in fact, an accurate statement. I should point out we’re no longer talking about slander or libel, but this is an area in which I think a case might have legal sufficiency against Limbaugh. I’m not as familiar with this tort, but a quick read suggests that Fluke, should she sue, could recover here. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/115 "2012-03-09T14:36:42Z")
Get one ditto-head on the jury and the prosecution wouldn’t have a chance. ---
**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 9, 2012, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/116 "2012-03-09T15:02:06Z")
I agree that privacy actions might be a much better route than defamation actions. “False light” comes to mind. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Knig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@Typo\_Knig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Knig)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/117 "2012-03-09T16:39:53Z")
IANAL, but are you saying that Fluke could sue on the basis that Limbaugh violated her privacy, rather than that he defamed her? And that a privacy violation is easier to prove? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/118 "2012-03-09T20:18:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. Because, as has been pointed out, if one is taking contraception, it is a fixed cost. So ANY amount of sex would trigger the cost that she can’t afford. > > Right? Even if this is true, it’s a fact that she neither said this, nor words to this effect: Limbaugh was lying when he claimed she’d said she was having so much sex she couldn’t afford it. The question seems to be whether he was lying in reckless disregard for the truth. If he could show that, despite her never having made that claim, she actually WAS having so much sex that she couldn’t afford it, that sounds like a defense against the “reckless disregard” standard. However, to refute that, he’d have to ask her, “Were you having so much sex that you couldn’t afford it?” to which she might answer, “nope,” and then where would Rush be? How would he go about showing that she was? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/119 "2012-03-09T20:22:22Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > If he could show that, despite her never having made that claim, she actually WAS having so much sex that she couldn’t afford it, that sounds like a defense against the “reckless disregard” standard. I think the relevant issue here would be whether or not Rush tried to find out if the claim was true. If you publish or say something without making any effort to verify it, then you could be said to have reckless disregard for the truth. He didn’t try to find out it was true, of course, because he had no way of knowing anything about her sex life and was just trying to insult her. ---
**Author:** ![pikey\_pete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pikey\_pete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pikey_pete)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/120 "2012-03-09T22:55:22Z")
since ‘slut’, while a defamatory statement, is strictly subjective and has no legal basis, Fluke has no case if she were to sue him over that. ‘Prostitute,’ on the other hand is a legally defined term, which Ms. Fluke does not fit the requirements for, ergo, she has a case there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117.md?page=7)