Could Sandra Fluke Actually Sue Rush?

[romantico]

Is there a possible law suit here?

[surfdog]

1. Big-time

I am expecting a lawsuit

[ProSense]

2. She most

certainly should. She's not a public figure, and the evidence is overwhelming: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002382940

Hit the companies that continue to support this vile POS.

[Lint Head]

3. She should. But this incident has made her a hero to a lot of people, including me, so that decision

should be made carefully. She is a law student and has probably considered it.

[liberal N proud]

4. She would need the backing of someone with a large purse and a Really GOOD lawyer.

Because the Limbaugh lawers would eat here alive in court.

They do this for a living.

[Goblinmonger]

5. It would be risky.

Truth is the ultimate defense to defamation and Rush and crew would dig up absolutely anything they can about her if it goes to court--true or just rumor.

I'm not saying anything about Fluke's life. I don't know her one bit. But this possible lawsuit has "it's going to get ugly" written all over it. And a law student would know that.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. But his attacks were based on her statement

and he completely misrepresented what she said

[Goblinmonger]

15. Not arguing that

but if she sues him for saying she is a slut, I guarantee you that every single person she had sex with is going to be brought up. Everything she ever did or was rumored to do will get brought up. And Rush has the money to hire lawyers to do all that.

[michreject]

28. Is slut subjective?

I would think that that would have to be established first.

If you(not you personally) have sex with 6 people and I have sex with 2, are you a slut?

What's the cut off number of partners?

[hifiguy]

6. She certainly could.

She is not even a "limited purpose" public figure for purposes of libel law.

She should sue the Bloated Sack to hell and back, and I am sure that there are some very smart lawyers who would be willing to represent her.

[kirby]

7. Anyone can sue, but can she win?

I hope some big time lawyers take her case pro-bono. I'm sure there is a free speech element involved, but there is also a personal libel/slander here.

But as another poster said, a defense to libel/slander is if it is the truth. That means that the victim becomes subjected to intimate inquiries of his/her personal life trying to establish/twist that what was said was actually true.

[kestrel91316]

11. Well, unless this law student is, in fact, a PROSTITUTE, she has him by the short hairs.

Because there is really no way to spin oneself out of that one.

[joeybee12]

9. I think so...

Problem is, if she sues, the worthless media will focus on ehr suing him, not on what he said.

[COLGATE4]

10. In my legal opinion, yes.

The words he used against her, "slut", "prostitute" are textbook examples of slander. She is not a public figure, so there's no protection for him under Sullivan. I think she has a hell of a case.

[Goblinmonger]

16. He can argue that "prostitute" was hyperbole for his bit as an entertainer.

And anything she ever did or was rumored to do that is remotely "slutish" will be brought up and exaggerated.

[COLGATE4]

18. He can also argue that he's a Martian and

that 'prostitute' is really Martian for "lovely young lady", but the law on slander is centuries old and one of the absolute textbook examples of what is know as slander per se (i.e. always slanderous, no matter what the circumstances) is a term like "prostitute" for a female. The only defense is the truth, i.e. he'd had to try and prove to a court (or worse to a jury) that it was accurate for him to call her a "prostitute, i.e. she sells her body to strangers for money". Somewhat doubtful.

[COLGATE4]

24. Won't wash. "Prostitute" is what is known in the law

as Slander per se - i.e. it's slanderous no matter whether used as hyperbole, or for entertainment, or whatever. The only defense to Slander per se is the truth, i.e. that Fluke is in fact a women who has sex with strangers for money. He can try and tarnish her character all he wants, but the genie is out of the bottle with that pronouncement.

[librechik]

12. lawyers differ, Norman Goldman and Mike Papantonio

think she might not have standing because she chose to speak out, and so became a public figure.

Personally, I think that is bullshit, if true. She ought to sue, big time, if only to annoy Rush.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Not so easily...

I'm not a lawyer, but I have spent some time in courtrooms and have some idea what to look for in a lawsuit.

The first question might be just what are the damages? That she was insulted is no big deal by itself, but what did she lose by it? Was she fired from or not hired by a job because of the slander? Did she suffer problems at school because of it? Was she a pariah because of it? So far it seems she might have actually benefited from it and became an extraordinarily sympathetic character with huge support. She might even end up making money over this.

Slander depends on the slanderer intending to damage the "slanderee" by telling a lie. Limbaugh could argue that as a comedian he was merely making a rude joke that was so outrageous no one could take it seriously.

There's something about a comment being "slanderous pro se" that I don't fully understand, but it has to do with lying about a woman's sexual activity. That may mean she could have a slam dunk, but then again, what are the damages?

I don't doubt that by now she has had expert advice and will decide on her whether or not a lawsuit is a good idea. And that advice will include whether or not it's a good idea for a law student to sue over something like this whether or not she has a good case.

[mahina]

14. I agree, also no lawyer, but unless there is financial loss, how could she sue to recover it?

Also, the verdict in Fox v. Franken, to paraphrase Al Franken, concluded that satire is protected speech. It turns my stomach to think of Limbaugh skirting justice but there it is.

[COLGATE4]

20. Slander is not satire.

[COLGATE4]

19. You're right. You're not a lawyer.

You nearly got it right towards the end. The term 'prostitute' is slander per se, i.e. it is a slanderous term no matter how you use it (assuming you're not telling the exact, legal truth and the person you're referring to is in fact a prostitute). Once slander has been proved you don't have to prove compensatory damages. The claim is made for General Damages (i.e. not restricted to economic loss) - the court is free to award General damages as it sees fit. In addition, the Plaintiff can also sue for Punitive Damages, whose sole purpose (as the same implies) are damages which are made for the sole purpose of punishing the Defendant.

[mahina]

26. Good to know!

[SpartanDem]

17. She could, but she shouldn't

the moment she's sues, it becomes about her wanting money, attention, etc. Instead of what that fat gasbag said to her.

[obamanut2012]

21. Yup, and she should

[Ter]

22. No, because you can not define what slut means

Is it someone who has sex on the first date? Someone with more than 25 partners? She would have to prove she's not one, but there's no legal definition.

[nolabear]

23. Prostitute, however...

And I think she has a case against him for sexual harrassment as well. He has blatantly dog-whistled a lot of followers into calling her names in public that are intimidating, terrifying, and often connected with acts of violence. He means to frighten women into submission. He is, in short, (very short), a terrorist.

[COLGATE4]

25. Perhaps, but there certainly is

a legal definition for "prostitute", and using it to describe a person who is not legally definitionally a prostitute is Slander per se, and is actionable.

[treestar]

27. I don't think it would be a hard case for calling it an insult to one's morals

There's a ground for slander for that.

Maybe there are cases on it already.