2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSandra Fluke is being encouraged to sue baby sue....
I heard today that Miss Fluke has had several attorneys agree to work pro Bono on a lawsuit against Mr Viagra . I think a nice little lawsuit say September or October would be nice.. Oh and please don't hire Gloria Alridge..
elleng
(131,107 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)onenote
(42,759 posts)No lawyer would ever guarantee a victory in a defamation suit -- judges and lawyers can be awfully unpredictable.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Dan
(3,579 posts)not as a public figure...which entitles her some degree of privacy... not be subjected to public attack, etc. It would be interesting to say the least...
onenote
(42,759 posts)The whole point of the "limited purpose public figure" is that there are occasions on which private citizens become public figures by their public participation in matters of public concern. Ms. Fluke, who volunteered to testify before Congress and spoke to reporters after she was denied that initial request and then appeared in a widely reported on second hearing is the classic example of a limited purpose public figure.
From Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc, 418 US 323 (1974): In some instances an individual may achieve such pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. More commonly, an individual voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy, and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues.
90-percent
(6,829 posts)Will that serve the greater good? Does she stand to loose more than she could gain?
Is this even a good idea? For her? For the victory of truth and justice over hate and fascism?
-90% Jimmy
Whisp
(24,096 posts)if she sued and won the money could go to Planned Parenthood, etc.
plus that would chap the ass of Rush - 2 greater goods.
center rising
(971 posts)abbeyco
(1,555 posts)not only against Limpballs but Clear Channel, too - for conveying the libelous words of his.
This could get interesting....
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)now that Rush declared her a 'slut' - its open season on her from some knuckle dragging Quest for Fire neandrathals.
I think it could very well be framed into a personal safety issue, for one.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)he could be sued by HUNDREDS of women.
Collectively, they could break him.
or just keep him in court for the next twenty years.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Like a class action lawsuit.
That would be great!
lovekendyl
(61 posts)Sue Sandra Sue...................
onenote
(42,759 posts)based on their advice. I could be wrong, but I would bet that based on an honest assessment of what suing limpy will entail, she decides not to bother.
As I posted on a similar thread:
Any real lawyer worth his or her salt will sit down with her and explain exactly what suing limpy will entail. Among other things, a lawyer will explain that in all likelihood she will be deemed to be a "limited purpose public figure" with respect to the subject matter of limpy's bile and thus will have to show that he either had actual knowledge that she was not "a slut" or "a prostitute" (not that he didn't have knowledge that she was) or acted with reckless disregard with respect to the truth or falsity of his claims. She can't possibly prove the former, but should have a good shot at proving the latter.
She will, by suing, open herself up to intrusive discovery and questioning about her sex life (a)since truth is a defense and limpy will assert that he has to be given an opportunity to mount that defense through discovery; and (b) since such questioning is presumptively relevant to the question of the extent to which her reputation has been damaged (not the fact that it was damaged, which is presumed). In many ways, she will be on trial as much as limpy will be. It will be explained to her that limpy will argue that his comments were hyperbole and should not be treated as actionable. Assuming that she can prevail over limpy's delay tactics and his aggressive discovery (and I think that she might be able to), the case would likely be appealed and limpy will use it as a marketing tool and to claim to be on the correct side of the first amendment (the fact that this is bs won't stop him from doing it or stop some people from believing it). If she finally does win, insurance probably will cover some (but not all) of Limpy's cost and limpy's backers won't be convinced that he was wrong. The good news is that if she prevails on an actual malice theory, she could collect a large sum in punitive damages -- not enough to bankrupt limpy, but a nice sum for her to distribute to causes she cares about. On the other hand, if she loses -- and remember, if its a jury trial, the outcome will be unpredictable (for example what if there is a prudish juror that is offended by what is turned up about her past sex life). If she does lose, she loses a lot -- the victory she has won in the court of public opinion today will be tainted and she will forever be known not as the woman who was ruthlessly attacked by limpy, but as yet another woman that was name called by Rush but failed to convince a jury he had done anything wrong.
After receiving all of that advice and more, she will make a decision and I would hope we would all support her whatever that decision turns out to be.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)1. Being accused of a crime;
2. Having a loathsome disease;
3. Being incompetent at your chosen profession;
4. Imputation of unchastity in a woman.
Those are the four categories of slander per se. Damages are ASSUMED to be done, but the amount must be proven in court.
Defamation is different from slander. Slander has no requirement of a plaintiff being a public figure, unlike defamation. It follows that slander does not require the test of actual malice, either.
onenote
(42,759 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 10, 2012, 11:09 AM - Edit history (2)
First, defamation is the general term that covers both libel (which is a defamatory statement made in writing) and slander (a defamatory statement made orally). Assuming that Limpy publishes a transcript of his shows (and I don't know if he does), he could be sued for both slander and libel.
Second, as between slander and libel, there generally is no difference in the elements of the cause of action. To make out a case of libel or slander, a plaintiff typically must prove:
That the defendant made a false and defamatory statement of fact concerning the plaintiff.
That the defendant acted at least negligently in making the defamatory statement.
That the plaintiff was damaged by the defamatory statement.
A "defamatory statement" is generally defined as a statement of fact that tends to expose a person to public scorn or ridicule (although different states describe defamation more or less specifically than that).
The burden of proof (including the burden of proving that the statement was false) typically is on the plaintiff, although some states have shifted the burden to the defendant to prove that the statement was true. In any case, truth is a defense, so even in states where the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the statement in question was false, defendants can seek discovery from the plaintiff in an effort to show that the statement was true.
Also, some states specifically instruct juries that in determining whether the statement defamed the plaintiff, the jury is to consider "the plain and natural meaning of the statement, taken as a whole." Some states also direct juries to consider how the statement would be perceived by a "reasonable person" while others instruct juries also to consider how it was meant by the defendant.
Third, certain types of statements are deemed "per se" libelous or slanderous, including statements falsely accusing a person of crime, immoral acts, inchastity, or having a loathsome disease. Falsey stating that someone is a "slut" or a "prostitute" is typically regarded as an example of a statement that is "per se" defamatory. With respect to such statements, the plaintiff still has to prove the statement was a false statement of fact (in those jurisdictions where the burden of proving falsity is placed on the plaintiff) but does not have to prove that the statement harmed his/her reputation or caused any actual damages. At minimum, someone who has been the target of a defamatory per se statement is entitled to a nominal amount of "general" damages for harm to their reputation. More than nominal damages can be imposed depending on the degree of harm to reputation that the jury concludes has been incurred by the plaintiff (for example, if the defendant shows that the plaintiff had a lousy reputation, then the general damages will be less than would be the case if the plaintiff shows that he/she has an exemplary reputation). In additon to these "general" damages, a plaintiff can attempt to prove and recover "actual" (or "special" damages based on provable economic losses, such as lost wages or business. And where the plaintiff shows that the statement was made with "actual malice," punitive damages typically can and will be awarded.
Fourth, as a matter of constitutional law, a higher burden is placed on a plaintiff that has attained the status of a "public figure," either for all purposes or for a "limited purpose." This constitutional standard applies to all cases alleging defmation -- slander AND libel, even slander and libel "per se." Where the plaintiff is a public figure (all purpose or limited purpose), the plaintiff must establish that the defendant made with defamatory statement with "actual malice" -- meaning that the defendant had actual knowledge that the statement they were making was false or that the defendant made the statement with reckless disregard as to whether the statement was true or false. (In cases that involve a purely "private" person, all that the plaintiff must show is that the defendant made the false statement negiligently (i.e., did not exercise the level of care in making the statement that one would expect from a "reasonable person."
A couple of additional notes. Its often said that one can't be held liable for defamation if one is merely stating an "opinion." To a certain degree that is true, but merely labelling something an "opinion" (such as "in my opinion, she is a prostitute" isn't necessarily sufficient to protect a defendant. To prove that the statement in issue is one of opinion not fact, the defendant typically must show that the statement addresses a matter of public concern in a manner that is not provably true or false and cannot be reasonably interpreted as intended to convey actual facts about a person. (Thus, in my example, the statement "in my opinion she is a prostitute" is not considered an opinion for purposes of defamation law). In addition, other factors that can come into play in determining whether an allegedly defamatory statement is actionable are whether the language used is figurative or hyperbolic, or whether the general tenor of the statement, taken in context, is such that it negates the conclusion that a reasonable person would perceive the speaker as seriously maintaining the truth of the underlying facts.
As indicated, the precise standards applied to defamation cases can vary somewhat from state to state. For those that are interested in understanding the elements of a defamation case, one option is to google "model jury instructions defamation" -- that should lead you to onliine versions of the model (or "pattern" jury instructions that have been adopted by various states for civil cases. Typically, there is a specific set of instructions for "defamation" (or "libel and slander" .
Hope this helps.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)In whether she goes ahead with a lawsuit or not.
Dan
(3,579 posts)90-percent
(6,829 posts)Did Anita Hill's courageous testimony about Clarance Thomas serve her and the greater good?
Or would things have been better if she had held her peace on the matter?
I cannot answer that one.
-90% Jimmy
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)That would have served a greater good.
polichick
(37,152 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I think it might be better if she ran for Congress (AND WON)
Shannon1981
(51 posts)and win.. She is a) a law student at one of the most prestigious institutions around and b) the face of women's rights right now at a time where a lot of women are outraged at the state of things. I think this is a brilliant idea.
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)about his sexuality? Seems logical to me.
onenote
(42,759 posts)Not relevant. No court would allow it.