Posted on 03/08/2012 4:42:05 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
I see Mr Rogers is still playing lawyer.
Political Junkie Too, you don't want to be embarrassed when you discuss Fluke in front of liberals; you'll want facts. If you're going to rely on the legal analysis of non-attorneys, you may want to ask then for their analysis of Limbaugh's many other comments, such when he called Fluke "a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her life woman." One poster says it's a sterling example of Limbaugh's sense of humor. On the other hand that sentence was such a problem (or 'so funny') that Limbaugh's staff completely removed it from the transcript a full day before it removed the rest of the now-redacted transcript.
You may want to ask yourself if everything Limbaugh said was so clearly parody and satire, why do so many people on FR thought and still think Fluke talked about her sex life, when she didn't. Or ask why so many people here thought and still think she said she was having a lot of sex, when she didn't mention her sex life.
And be certain you get your money's worth from free, non-layer legal advice, Political Junkie Too. As how the poster applies Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), the believability of parody elements addressed in one of the underlying cases, Falwell v. Flynt, 797 F.2d 1270 (4th Cir. 1986); Smith v. Stewart, 660 SE 2d 822, 831-832 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008); Smith v. Atkins, 622 So.2d 795, 800 (La. Ct. App.1993); Bryson v. News America Publications, 672 N.E.2d 1207, 1217(I) (1996); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323; Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1976); Secord v. Cockburn, 747 F.Supp. 779 (1990); Associated Press v. Walker, 389 U.S. 28 (1967).
I didn't just cut and paste those. I've read each of them (and many other cases) this week regarding a specific point on this issue.
I'm not familiar with Florida Stat. 836.04, the criminal statute the ever-present Allred cites. It's at odds with Florida's abandonment of common law civil per se defamation of a woman's virtue through use of the word 'slut' and similar words ('prostitute' is different, as it suggests criminal behavior). If I have time, I'll see if 836.04 has been cited by any cases lately.
I don't know how Florida's criminal defamation statute meshes with limited public figures.
There are also 'apology provisions' in 836.08:
If it appears upon the trial that said article was published in good faith; that its falsity was due to an honest mistake of the facts; that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the statements in said article were true; and that, within the period of time specified in subsection (2), a full and fair correction, apology, and retraction was published in the same editions or corresponding issues of the newspaper or periodical in which said article appeared, and in as conspicuous place and type as was said original article, then any criminal proceeding charging libel based on an article so retracted shall be discontinued and barred.
The 'subsection (2)' referred to requires broadcast apologies with ten days. It's silent as to the period required for apologies for internet publications, but I can't imagine they would be shorter.
“But let them start it.”
I don’t think it matters anymore. Even if they do start it you know they’ll still say we started it.
Good thing the Dems were not around to spin the facts for the Nazis or we’d all be told in school that the Jews started it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.