Skip to comments.Sandra Fluke on “The View”: Rush’s apology “changes nothing” (That's one gracious lady /s)
Posted on 03/05/2012 1:02:35 PM PST by SeekAndFind
While Laura Ingraham waits for an encouraging call from the president to compensate for MSNBC’s Ed Schultz calling her a “slut,” “reproductive justice” activist Sandra Fluke rejects Rush Limbaugh’s sincere expression of regret for calling her the same:
The Georgetown law student who drew an apology from Rush Limbaugh this weekend after the conservative radio host called her a “slut” on his show said that his public apology wasn’t sufficient during an appearance on ABC’s “The View” today.
“I don’t think that a statement like this issued, saying that his choice of words was not the best, changes anything, and especially when that statement is issued when he’s under significant pressure from his sponsors who have begun to pull their support,” said the 30-year-old student, Sandra Fluke. …
Fluke said she has not heard from Limbaugh personally but added that she’s not hoping to speak with him.
“The statements he’s made about me over the air are personal enough, so I’d rather not have a personal phone call with him,” Fluke said.
Fluke has the luxury to reject his apology in large part because she has the support not only of the president himself, but of big-name advertisers who have exerted bully-like pressure on Limbaugh. (Even The View’s Whoopi Goldberg said she found the speed with which they were willing to abandon the radio host to be disturbing!)
At this point, while it’s plausible that Rush apologized solely because he’s losing sponsors (as Fluke suggested), it’s also plausible that he has genuinely repented of his word choice. Limbaugh not only said he was sorry with a statement online, but he also opened his show today — his first on-air appearance since advertisers began to pull their support for his program — with a repeat apology, in which he made it clear that he violated his own personal broadcasting standards. In fact, he took a full 30 minutes to explain the entire episode to his listeners, including an explanation for why his advertisers left him (h/t The Right Scoop):
Ed said this weekend he thinks Rush was right to apologize, but I’m not so sure. He was wrong to use the word “slut” in the first place — it’s just a disgusting word that’s better left unsaid and Rush’s use of it conveniently played into the leftist narrative that conservative men are misogynistic (i.e. it was both tasteless and strategically stupid of Rush to say it) — but his apology makes it seem as though he did something wrong by expressing his opinion about a legitimate subject of national commentary.
Folks have made the argument that Rush’s “personal attack” was somehow different than similar name-calling directed to the likes of Laura Ingraham, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. The argument typically goes something like this: Sarah Palin et. al. are public figures, while Sandra Fluke is a private citizen. But, in this instance, Fluke isn’t exactly a “private citizen.” She’s a seasoned activist who introduced the subject of Georgetown law students’ sex lives to the national debate about the Obama administration’s religious-liberty-violating contraception mandate.
Indeed, her unwillingness to accept Rush’s apology underscores that she’s far from a naive private individual who unexpectedly found herself at the center of a national controversy; she made it clear by her remarks on The View that she’s prepared to stoke this controversy as long as she derives a benefit from it. As long as advertisers continue to withdraw support for Limbaugh and the left continues to rally around Ms. Fluke, she’ll milk his remarks for all they’re worth.
The answer: Let’s stop giving Fluke the benefit of this controversy. Let’s keep the focus where it belongs and patiently continue to correct the misimpression (a.k.a. lie) that conservatives want to ban contraception. Nobody wants to ban contraception, but the Obama administration does want to force religious employers who object to contraception on religious grounds to pay for employee health insurance that includes coverage for contraception. It’s to that mandate that conservatives are politically opposed. Some conservatives are also personally opposed to contraception and to sexual promiscuity — but they’re not seeking to change the culture through the government. It’s progressives who prescribe government solutions to cultural ills and, in the process, jeopardize important freedoms.
The term by all intent and purpose is a misogynist slur. It doesn't matter what Ms. Fluke is, Rush saw the error of his way by stooping to what the left does. Words mean things and we on the right have to promote standards which are above the left since they have none.
Wanting for taxpayers to pay so Ms Flukes can engage in promiscuous behavior may have been a better way to describe it instead of using a derogatory term directed at her.
Rush was right. Asking me to pay for Person X's sexual opportunities is my putting money in their pocket so they can have sex.
I don't want to pay for Fluke's sex or anyone else's.
More importantly, though, The Catholic Church should not be required to pay for Fluke's sexual preferences.
I strongly suspect that Fluke’s sexual orientation would make birth control unnecessary.
Except girls can be guys, so the girl she is going with could be a guy who thinks he’s a girl.
She would need a female condom for a girl with an outie instead of an innie.
The short answer is that Fluke has no legal case and she knows it, which is why she's using the court of public opinion.
This has direct practical application to us. If we didn't have New York Times v Sullivan, the key case in modern American libel law, much of what appears on Free Republic could get Jim Robinson into a lot of trouble.
Here's the longer answer, which may be of help to people who worry they'll get in trouble for what they say.
Under the legal standards of New York Times v Sullivan and subsequent case law, Sandra Fluke is, at a bare minimum, a “limited public figure” and probably would now be considered a public figure since she has repeatedly sought public attention for herself and her views.
That means she's basically fair game for almost anything thrown at her unless she can prove the allegation is not only
but also made with
2) actual malice and
3) reckless disregard for the truth.
Those three tests for a libel lawsuit against a public official, public figure, or limited public figure are almost impossible to meet. There are reasons the National Enquirer and similar tabloid publications get away with what they do to celebrities and other public figures.
Before we yell and howl about the courts enabling media irresponsibility, let's look at why American libel law protects irresponsible behavior. As a member of the media, I support New York Times v Sullivan. Go look at the John Peter Zenger case in colonial America, which precedes and underlies our First Amendment — elected officials should not be able to use the courts to stifle critics. Zenger was thrown into jail for publishing articles exposing corruption by the colonial governor of New York, and his lawyer convinced a jury to ignore then-existing British law and refuse to convict him because the articles about the governor's corruption were true.
However, even if Fluke is considered a “private figure,” there's no way for her to win a libel lawsuit unless she can show that an allegation made about her was actually false. Calling someone a bad name, even using severe terms of abuse, does not rise to the level of libel. A case about a century ago involving the “Cherry Sisters” vaudeville act established the legal principle that statements of opinion, no matter how severe they may be, are not libelous.
Bottom line: If the word “slut” is a factual allegation, Fluke would have to prove it factually wrong. If the word “slut” is a statement of opinion, she has no case at all.
As a law student I'm sure Fluke already knows all of that. She may win a case in the court of public opinion but she's not going to win in a court of law.
35 posted on Monday, March 05, 2012 3:36:16 PM by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas: “That is a legal question, and I am certainly no expert. But I can imagine the argument: “Should a citizen who comes before congress be subject to such damaging claims with no legal remedy?” (They could try to make the case that her fame was not really her own doing, but it happened beyond her control). And as I have said before, the Left excels at judge-shopping. Her object would not be primarily to win in court (although Limbaugh might settle out of court), but to create a legal/political media circus. I hope this does not happen, because I don't see it as a political plus for conservatism, unless some character like Hillary gets caught doing something illegal or undeniably sleazy (from the point of view of “moderates”).”
> Sandra Fluke : Rushs apology changes nothing
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
I agree with her.
Which is why you must *NEVER*, *EVER* apologize to the Left.
Like Moslems, they see it as weakness. Like sharks, it is blood in the water to them.
No, a LIAR!!!
‘Slur’? When a person makes their own bed, they can’t complain when someone calls them on it aqnd doesn’t sugar coat the issue! When a person disparages themselves and makes it public- it is NO slur to call them on it- She let the world KNOW that she is a slut- she smears herself on public television- To slur someone is to assume the person mentioning her LIFESTYLE (and yes, being a slut IS a lifestyle CHOICE) mneant malice toward that person.
If she can show the label of slut is false, and that she infact has NOT had premarital sex, then she has been slurred- if she can not show that- then she has NOT been slurred
[[Words mean things and we on the right have to promote standards which are above the left]]
We also have a responsiblity NOT to ignore such immoral behaviour!!! Should Rush have told the TRUTH and said “She is immoral, and now she wants the governemnt to support her immorality? Would that have been better? Being polite is one thing- Turnign a BLIND EYE to sin is quite another thing- it is a sin to ignore sin and to tiptoe aroudn it and pretend it isn;t such a big deal- people like Sandra are destroying htis coutnry, and the way they ARE gettign away with it is becauyse Good people will no lionger stand up and point out the sin that is being perpetrated upon this nation- Sandra and the left know that the right has lost it’s moral spine, and they are takign advantage of this fact
and by the way- you just accused Rush of hating women- have yopu evidence to back that accusation up? Pointing out hte SIN of a woman is NOT an act of hatred towards womankind- no more than pointing out hte SIN of a man would be an act of hatred against mankind
You can talk about "sin" all you want, the issue is using tax payer money to buy contraception. We all know this is wrong, but it does not negate what this is all about. Rush used the wrong term describing a person and turning it into a personal thing. He didn't mean to do this, but the result was such. He made the mistake, admitted it, and sincerely apologized for it.
Personally, I couldn't be more proud of Rush who abides by a Standard, he momentarily failed to uphold!
[[Slur is a disparaging remark!]]
you can’;t disparage someone who has already told the whole workld they ARE ifnact a slut- They may not like beign caleld what thwey ARE- but tough! They sit proudly before congress tellign the world she is a slut, and then gets all upity when someone actually calsl them what they have already described themselves as being?
[[Rush used the wrong term describing a person and turning it into a personal thing.]]
You don’;t know a thing about me for a reason - I have never divulged anythign in public- so IF you were to call me somethign, it would be a slur or slanderous remark IF it caused financial damage-
Perhaps Rush shoudl have used the biblical term of whore then? The bible didn;t refrain from calling whores whores- they didn’;t turn a blind eye and pretend that it was no big deal either!
‘turn it into a personal thing’? Cripes- SHe herself MADE it personal by airing the filthy fact that it costs her 1000 a year for her to have premarital sex and she feels she is entitled to have the public pay for her sleep aroubnd like sluts do- She may not like htre fact that people call her what she actually IS- but again - tough luck- she made her bed- and her WHINING about being called to the carpet for HER actions is dispicvable!
Perhaps the bible and it’s writers ‘momentarily failed to uphold’ some arbitrary ‘standard’ that you personally feel should ap-pply to the right by calling out whores too then?
A woman who leads someone into the sin of fornication, is a slut or whore- there is no cute way to put it- What Rush did was cowtow to the left who DEMAND that the right NEVER bring up the subject of blatant sin that hte left is mired in, and they demand that we just pat them on the back abnd prete4nd that their sin is no big deal- that we wink and nod, and pretend nothign evil is taking palce. yopu may ‘admire’ rush for cowtowing to the left, but it is this very act of spineless cowtowing that has allowed sluts, whores, fornicators and adulterers to degrade them oral value of thsi coutnry (and other countries)
The saying is true that in order for evil to flourish, good men must do nothing- By apologizing to a woman, who bty her own admissions in public forum/cognress ADMITS to beign a slut, rush in essence is tellign hte left “I’m sorry I mentioend the obvious, and vow never to brign up the obvious again becauswe someone might be uncomfortable having hteir obvious SIN pointed out to them- He is in essencve agreeign to ‘do nothing’ aboput an obvious situatrion- I certainyl do NOT admire anyone for selling out their own convictions in order to appease obvious blatant sinners.
As I said in previous post- the left is gettign away with hteir in your face sinful activities and ‘ideologies’ because they KNOW the right would never dare broach the subject and exspose the sin of the blatant unrepentant sinners, and the leftist government is likewise gettign away with tr5ampling on our constutional RIGHTS because they KNOW the right doesn’;t dare broach the FACT that htey left is violating the constiutution for fear of being ridiculed by these constituional violators! If you ‘admire’ someone tuckign hteir tail between their legs then whatever- that’;s your perrogative
Well, after an Obama-sympathetic bankruptcy court threw out seemingly solid precedents to reward auto unions, I hesitate to predict with certainty what a court will do, but I think Fluke should lose such a court case. Another question is whether Obama and minions could use the case to win a propaganda struggle.
She’s right, you know. What Rush says or doesn’t say does not change at Fluke is someone who engages promiscuously in recreational sexual activity and believes she ought to be subsidized by Americans for doing so.
I would be so ashamed if she were my daughter. It is bad enough that she does this, but for her to be so shameless as to testify before a mock Congressional committee hearing is really over the top.
Maybe slut is not quite an accurate term for her, but I can tell you for sure that “proper lady” is far less accurate.
It does not have to do with the accuracy of the statement. I even believe Rush's statement was accurate according to Ms Fluke's statement. However, just because you have the RIGHT to say something and you may be right does not mean you should say it! The issue is about decorum and standards. Rush has a certain standard he wants to uphold.
He realized his error, and corrected it. This is what many of you are not realizing. He did the correct and proper thing by rising above the vile statement. Furthermore, it's just offensive to use a demeaning term like that about someone you know NOTHING about!
Again, I am very proud of Rush for rising above and showing what true character he has.
I just discovered that ol’ Sandra Fluke has made it on FR long long ago:
Near the bottom of the article.