Why Jimmy is wrong about Rush

The Truth Bell

SFN Supporter (As If)
Apr 21, 2005
994
46
338
#1
The thing Jimmy is missing is the fact that Sandra Fluke is not a public figure.

That's an incredibly important distinction.

Sarah Palin, Laura Ingram and Elizabeth Taylor are public figures.

You can legally attack them.
 

Ballbuster1

In The Danger Zone...
Wackbag Staff
Aug 26, 2002
102,803
16,601
839
Your house, behind the couch
#3
The thing Jimmy is missing is the fact that Sandra Fluke is not a public figure.

That's an incredibly important distinction.

Sarah Palin, Laura Ingram and Elizabeth Taylor are public figures.

You can legally attack them.
You sir, are a dummy.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,347
21,959
398
Northern California
#4
The thing Jimmy is missing is the fact that Sandra Fluke is not a public figure.

That's an incredibly important distinction.

Sarah Palin, Laura Ingram and Elizabeth Taylor are public figures.

You can legally attack them.
She became a public figure when she purposely enrolled in a school where she could launch her activist agenda from, and then used the media and government to try and further her cause.

BTW, nothing Rush said was illegal.
 

jnoble

Lingering longer for a longering linger
Dec 4, 2005
8,411
4,177
566
New Jersey
#5
You can verbally attack anyone techincally. The point the Rush supporters are trying to make is that the people that are pretending to be so OUTRAGED! at what Rush said couldn't care less in the past or laughed/joined in when equally harsh things were said about Palin, Ingram, Malkin, etc. Andrew Breitbart died and some terrible things were immediatly said about him. I'm still waiting for those apologies.

Jon Stewart claimed Rush was a "terrible person" last night. Yeah, OK. This from the guy that once called President Bush an "asshole" on his show to loud studio applause. Hey Jon, fuck you and your hacky faggoty hipster show. Hope you enjoy Nov 4th 2012 when your precious Dear Leader gets deposed
 

jules

uppity taxpayer
Jul 24, 2005
3,695
183
428
south jersey
#6
The thing Jimmy is missing is the fact that Sandra Fluke is not a public figure.

That's an incredibly important distinction.

Sarah Palin, Laura Ingram and Elizabeth Taylor are public figures.

You can legally attack them.
dude wtf are you talking about?
jimmy was making a point about freedom of speech, not what he said right?
if rush had called for her to be beaten for what she said, then id say he couldnt say it, but not this.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
48,416
36,443
628
In a porn tree
#8
The thing Jimmy is missing is the fact that Sandra Fluke is not a public figure.

That's an incredibly important distinction.

Sarah Palin, Laura Ingram and Elizabeth Taylor are public figures.

You can legally attack them.
If you put a picture of your stupid fat head eating a stupid fat hamburger at your stupid fat company's stupid fat Fourth of July picnic up on your stupid fat facebook page... then you're a public figure, and I CAN LEGALLY attack you.

I you don't like it, then you can sit your stupid fat ass down in your stupid fat basement and curse the First Amendment to the Constitution until your stupid fat lips fall off.

Good stupid fat day, sir.
 

Jacuzzi Billy

Watching PTI
Donator
Mar 22, 2006
42,088
21,761
628
Red Jacuzzi
#9
Jimmy is wrong about everything because he needs food or drink 7 times in 4 hours.

Absolutely GD sighting.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,774
18,522
513
Kingdom of Charis
#10
Going to the sponsors is intellectually dishonest because the sponsors don't care if what was said is ok or not. They want zero bad publicity, which they receive purely by association, so they'll drop a show regardless of whether or not what the host said was ok. To them it's purely a numbers game. If the people who wanted to boycott had any faith in the merit of their actual argument, they would simply try and convince people to not listen to Rush. By going to the sponsors they are basically saying: "I want this to be judged not on whether it was right or wrong, but on whether or not the sponsors have the balls to call my bluff." While entirely legal, it is also morally reprehensible in my mind, especially for a single utterance. If Rush's show was "the calling women bad names hour" I'd understand wanting him off the air more, since his entire message was that. But it isn't. He said it once about one person and apologized. Anything beyond that has nothing to do with Sandra Fluke, and everything to do with Rush Limbaugh.
 

Arch Stanton

It's all about the funny!
Nov 22, 2004
25,696
374
663
Long Island
#11
Well. One of his sponsors that abandoned him is down quite a bit today. Carbonite.
 

The Truth Bell

SFN Supporter (As If)
Apr 21, 2005
994
46
338
#12
She testified publicly.
You sir, are a dummy.
She became a public figure when she purposely enrolled in a school where she could launch her activist agenda from, and then used the media and government to try and further her cause.

BTW, nothing Rush said was illegal.
Slander is a type of defamation in which a hurtful statement is spoken. To win a slander lawsuit, a victim must prove someone made a false statement that was "published" to at least one other person, and that the statement caused injury.

Public figures must also prove actual malice -- that the statement was made with intentional disregard for the truth.

In Sandra Fluke's case, she is not a public figure, lawyers told the Philadelphia Daily News. Fluke can "definitely" prove Limbaugh made the hurtful comments and "published" them to millions of listeners, one attorney said.

Rush's potential defenses -- such as free-speech protections and that he was just joking -- may not hold up with a jury, the attorney told the Daily News.

"His statements implied facts about somebody's sex life, that she was promiscuous and trading sex for money," the attorney explained. The company that syndicates Limbaugh's radio show may also be liable for "publishing" the comments, the attorney said.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,774
18,522
513
Kingdom of Charis
#14
First of all Mr. legal scholar, anything said on the radio is automatically categorized under defamation, not slander. Second,

Distinguishing between public and private figures for the purposes of defamation law is sometimes difficult. For an individual to be considered a public figure in all situations, the person's name must be so familiar as to be a household word—for example, Michael Jordan. Because most people do not fit into that category of notoriety, the Court recognized the limited-purpose public figure, who is voluntarily injected into a public controversy and becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. Limited-purpose public figures, like public figures, have at least temporary access to the means to counteract false statements about them. They also voluntarily place themselves in the public eye and consequently relinquish some of their privacy rights. For these reasons, false statements about limited-purpose public figures that relate to the public controversies in which those figures are involved are not considered defamatory unless they meet the actual-malice test set forth in Sullivan.
Comment, Johnny Cockring?
 
Dec 12, 2007
25,491
11,315
438
#17
Well I think everybody's fulla fudge, pardon my french.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#24
Slander is a type of defamation in which a hurtful statement is spoken. To win a slander lawsuit, a victim must prove someone made a false statement that was "published" to at least one other person, and that the statement caused injury.

Public figures must also prove actual malice -- that the statement was made with intentional disregard for the truth.

In Sandra Fluke's case, she is not a public figure, lawyers told the Philadelphia Daily News. Fluke can "definitely" prove Limbaugh made the hurtful comments and "published" them to millions of listeners, one attorney said.

Rush's potential defenses -- such as free-speech protections and that he was just joking -- may not hold up with a jury, the attorney told the Daily News.
Who cares. If they don't hold up with a scumbag jury, they'll hold up with the first appellate court that takes a look at the case. Point is, the First Amendment is by far the best enforced piece of legislation in the United States, and, as long as you have the money to fight these cases all the way to the Supreme Court if you have to (which Rush does), you're perfectly safe calling people who come up in conversation sluts, on the radio.

Oh, and as a general rule, when you find yourself in disagreement with someone about an aspect of their job (in Jimmy's case, about what can and cannot be safely said on the radio), your next stop should be wikipedia, not a fucking message board.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,127
12,916
373
Atlanta, GA
#25
Slander is a type of defamation in which a hurtful statement is spoken. To win a slander lawsuit, a victim must prove someone made a false statement that was "published" to at least one other person, and that the statement caused injury.

Public figures must also prove actual malice -- that the statement was made with intentional disregard for the truth.

In Sandra Fluke's case, she is not a public figure, lawyers told the Philadelphia Daily News. Fluke can "definitely" prove Limbaugh made the hurtful comments and "published" them to millions of listeners, one attorney said.

Rush's potential defenses -- such as free-speech protections and that he was just joking -- may not hold up with a jury, the attorney told the Daily News.

"His statements implied facts about somebody's sex life, that she was promiscuous and trading sex for money," the attorney explained. The company that syndicates Limbaugh's radio show may also be liable for "publishing" the comments, the attorney said.
This post is absolutely, positively, 100% NOT copy/pasted.