# 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:** 7
**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, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/121 "2012-03-09T22:58:39Z")
It’s a bit more complicated than that, **pikey pete**. That’s why we’re in the middle of page three. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/122 "2012-03-09T23:22:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. I’ll defer to your legal expertise, Bricker, but I don’t see that here. Just like how nobody could reasonably believe that Rush was calling her a prostitute, no reasonable person would believe that he had knowledge of her private sexual activities in order to be in a position to comment on them or reveal them in a way to infringe on her privacy. I vote with: Asshole: Yes. Tort: No. ---
**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, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/123 "2012-03-09T23:41:26Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I agree that privacy actions might be a much better route than defamation actions. > > “False light” comes to mind. Yup. ---
**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, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/124 "2012-03-09T23:43:54Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I’ll defer to your legal expertise, Bricker, but I don’t see that here. Just like how nobody could reasonably believe that Rush was calling her a prostitute, no reasonable person would believe that he had knowledge of her private sexual activities in order to be in a position to comment on them or reveal them in a way to infringe on her privacy. > . Not true. Rush heard her testimony. He reported she said something. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/125 "2012-03-09T23:55:42Z")
Except, of course, the only truth to his reporting is that she spoke. He misrepresented virtually very word that came out of her mouth. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/126 "2012-03-11T15:08:42Z")
But would the argument be made that, in this day and time, calling her unchaste would not be “highly offensive to a reasonable person”? Or would all the commentary be taken together, in which case, it definitely fit that requirement? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/127 "2012-03-11T18:01:31Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Except, of course, the only truth to his reporting is that she spoke. He misrepresented virtually very word that came out of her mouth. Correct. So a listener could conclude that Rush was accurately reporting what Fluke said, giving rise to the “false light” claim. The difference is that saying “slut” is either hyperbole and opinion, or it’s judged by the archaic factual standard of ‘fornicator.’ That is, under that standard, any unmarried person engaging in sex even once is unchaste and cannot complain about being called unchaste. But saying she’s having so much sex that her finances are implicated, though not defamatory, holds her in a false light. In my view, she has no chance in the slander analysis but a decent one in the false light one. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/128 "2012-03-11T18:21:20Z")
Question: Der Trihs said: > [@Liberals=Funny, Conservatives=Mean](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-funny-conservatives-mean/615294/26): > > The Republicans condemn and mock people for things are are outright lies; we have a recent example of Limbaugh doing just that, mocking a woman who lost an ovary as a “slut”. Is this claim slander or false light or unobjectionable? So far as I know, Fluke has not lost an ovary. I am curious to see how this might be analyzed here. ---
**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 11, 2012, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/129 "2012-03-11T20:25:51Z")
You can’t defame a nebulous group. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/130 "2012-03-11T20:58:05Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > You can’t defame a nebulous group. True. But Der Trihs said that Limbaugh, specifically, claimed that a woman who lost an ovary was a slut. Limbaugh is not a nebulous group. ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/131 "2012-03-11T21:10:35Z")
It wasn’t Fluke, but an acquaintance of hers who she testified about. ---
**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 11, 2012, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/132 "2012-03-11T21:11:46Z")
True. I just looked at the first half of the statement. The second half, if it contains any false statement of fact is a false statement about Fluke. It might be difficult, given Limbaugh’s earned reputation and public persona, to argue that this actually harms Limbaugh’s reputation in any way. ---
**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 11, 2012, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/133 "2012-03-11T22:40:44Z")
DT, where did you get the ovary thing? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/134 "2012-03-11T23:53:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But saying she’s having so much sex that her finances are implicated, though not defamatory, holds her in a false light. In my view, she has no chance in the slander analysis but a decent one in the false light one. That’s part of the reason I still say it’s not reasonable to think he said anything. How do you have “so much sex” that you can’t afford the pill? If you have sex once every few months or if there is a line of guys outside her dorm room throwing a fiver in the hat waiting their turns, it is still the same price for oral contraception. Did anyone reasonably think that because Rush said that she said she was screwing so much she couldn’t afford it that was a true character trait of hers? Did anyone reasonably rely on that statement to frown upon her? Was she damaged financially from it? If anything she’s gained financially from the media exposure. I think that such a judgment would chill free speech. Imagine conservative posters on this board having “false light” causes of action when our views are restated as “he hates women/gays/blacks.” To be fair, imagine liberal posters here having these suits claiming that we said they hate America? I think that what Rush said, as ridiculous as it was, is protected speech. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/135 "2012-03-12T00:21:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Did anyone reasonably think that because Rush said that she said she was screwing so much she couldn’t afford it that was a true character trait of hers? Perhaps not, but a “reasonable” person that didn’t hear her testimony may have assumed that she was testifying about her own usage of contraception, which she wasn’t, or even about her inability to comfortably afford contraception, which again, she wasn’t. The Catholic Church has denied funding to people that have defended contraception and abortion use before, but her arguments were just about within what is theologically acceptable as far as I’m aware. If she applies for employment with them and they reject her based on a misapprehension of what her testimony was about exacerbated by him, that’d strike me as grounds for a suit (IANAL, most ridiculous acronym of all time). If he presented himself as a mere comedian I wouldn’t consider it so egregious though. That said, I’d be more concerned if [this guy](http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/09/441449/students-silently-protest-professor-who-defended-limbaugh-ridiculed-fluke/) got fired. While what he said (if reported accurately) is pretty vile, some of my favourite professors espouse(d) extreme political views. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/136 "2012-03-12T09:23:55Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I agree that privacy actions might be a much better route than defamation actions. > > “False light” comes to mind. ## Wiki on false light: [False light - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light) Interesting stuff. The examples discussed at Wiki seem different though --for one thing statements about Fluke have arguably been corrected. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > DT, where did you get the ovary thing? Via google news: > [@Dana Milbank](#): > > The 24-year-old Fluke spoke with poise as she described a friend at Georgetown who was taking birth-control pills to control ovarian cysts but had to stop because the cost was too high. “She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result,” Fluke said. “She’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain and other symptoms of early menopause.” ## [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-witness-for-the-gop-gender-gap/2012/02/24/gIQAwpXsXR\_story.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-witness-for-the-gop-gender-gap/2012/02/24/gIQAwpXsXR_story.html) ## Incidentally, if I understand this correctly there is a misdemeanor case to be made against Limbaugh: Gloria Allred, the famed celebrity lawyer, sent a letter to the Palm Beach County Attorney’s Office on Thursday saying prosecutors should consider a charge under an 1883 law making it a misdemeanor to question a woman’s chastity. Bricker’s definition of chastity upthread is noted. IANAL. I don’t know whether the civil definition of chastity would carry into the criminal context. IANAL. [http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-09/news/31140508\_1\_gloria-allred-rush-limbaugh-county-attorney](http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-09/news/31140508_1_gloria-allred-rush-limbaugh-county-attorney) She cited a state law that says, “Whoever speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.” Hm. It does say “Falsely” which means testimony about Fluke’s sex life would be fair game. [http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Lawyer-Prosecute-Rush-Limbaugh-for-defamation-3394632.php](http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Lawyer-Prosecute-Rush-Limbaugh-for-defamation-3394632.php) I’ll hazard a prediction that Limbaugh won’t be convicted for these ~50 idiotic statements made over 3 days. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/137 "2012-03-14T11:51:48Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It’s a bit more complicated than that, **pikey pete**. That’s why we’re in the middle of page three. 😉 Would she have to show that she was damaged ($$) by whatever was said? If she clearly has not been damaged, would a court allow it to go forward just to prove a point? ---
**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 14, 2012, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/138 "2012-03-14T12:04:41Z")
American federal courts are only allowed to adjudicate “cases or controversies.” They are not allowed to preside over a proceeding that is only proving a point. I believe that state courts are also subject to similar restrictions. If a plaintiff fails to make a valid prima facie claim regarding any essential element of a claim and if harm is such an element, then the defendant would win summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted under the law. If a plaintiff does allege sufficient facts to create a genuine outstanding question of material fact regarding whether she has been harmed that can only be resolved through examination of evidence, then a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) would fail. ---
**Author:** ![IntelliQ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e99b99/32.png) [@IntelliQ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IntelliQ)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/139 "2012-03-14T14:05:08Z")
Slut is accurate. Prostitute is not, technically speaking. Personally, I hope someone does sue him for slander and wins. It will set a nice little precedent with unintended consequences for it’s short-sighted supporters. ---
**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 14, 2012, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/140 "2012-03-14T14:07:48Z")
> [@IntelliQ](#): > > Slut is accurate. > … > > It will set a nice little precedent with unintended consequences for it’s short-sighted supporters. Care to elaborate on both these quoted points? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117.md?page=8)