Slut or Felon?

| March 2, 2012 | 65 Comments

Let me be clear right up front, I don’t like O’Keefe, and although I liked Rush’s books, I stopped listening or purchasing anything by him after the drug issue. So, I have no dog in this hunt in that I really don’t give two shits.

But the cognitive dissonance and dishonesty from the left on this is starting. First, for those that don’t know the O’Keefe thing:

During the Feb. 24 edition of Olbermann’s show “Countdown,” Shuster called O’Keefe a “convicted felon,” something that is not true. Shuster also said that there was a “rape allegation facing” O’Keefe, something that also isn’t true. That claim, according to O’Keefe’s lawsuit, was related to allegations political activist Nadia Naffe made against him last year. The transcript of Naffe’s court deposition attached to O’Keefe’s lawsuit, however, proves he was never alleged to have raped her. It also shows that a judge dismissed Naffe’s allegations that O’Keefe harassed her.

Ok, easiest to steal from wiki here, but here are the elements:

For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. In the case of a celebrity or public official trying to prove libel, they must prove the first three steps, and must (in the United States) prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Usually specifically referred to as “proving malice”.

So, with O’Keefe, is he a felon or a rapist? The obvious answer is no. Those are facts, not opinions or some other thing that is subject to the vagaries of interpretation. Dude is not a felon. Proceed onward.

Compare that with Limbaugh who called a chick a slut. Politico has some bullshit today from various Democrats, two of which read:

Christopher Hahn
Democratic consultant; FOX News contributor: He should, he won’t and he will be sued. Congratulations Rush, for the first time something you said actually created another member of the one percent. Unfortunately for you, she, like most enlightened millionaires, will have no use for you.

Peter Fenn
Democratic media consultant: Not only should Limbaugh issue an apology but he should be sued for libel and should see the sponsors of his show withdraw.

Limbaugh has long cloaked his outrageous statements and outright falsehoods under the claim that he is an “entertainer.” There is nothing entertaining or enlightening about these latest comments.

Now, unlike the word “felon” which has a specific meaning, what the hell is a slut? Someone have an objective, empirical sentence? A Felon is a person convicted in court, or who has pled guilty to statutorily designated felony violations. Anyone know a definistion for “slut?” He didn’t say she let the entire dorm run a train on her or anything else. She testified before congress as to her sexual activities, and he ascribed to that a perjorative, that might not even be a perjorative, since a group of feminists are proudly organizing “slut walk.”

So am I to understand from Democrats that stating an opinion regarding someone elses character (slut) is legally actionable, but making a purported factual statement about someone being a felon, when that individual either knows that they are not, or should know, is NOT legally actionable?

Who wants to tackle that one for the left for me?

BTW- the legal standard that gives Rush the easy out is this one, from the CACI v. Randi Rhodes case:

The First Amendment also “provides protection for statements that cannot ‘reasonably [be] interpreted as stating actual facts’ about an individual.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20 (alteration in original) (quoting Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 50 (1988)). This safeguard includes protection for “rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet” and “loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 17, 21 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The safeguard is necessary to “provide[ ] assurance that public debate will not suffer for lack of ‘imaginative expression’ . . . which has traditionally
added much to the discourse of our Nation.” Id. at 20. Whether a statement can reasonably be interpreted as stating facts about an individual — whether it is rhetorical hyperbole, for example— is a question of law. See Hatfill v. New York Times Co., 416 F.3d 320, 330 (4th Cir. 2005) (“The question whether a statement is capable of having a defamatory meaning is a question of law to be decided by the court.”).

Category: Politics

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (65)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Claymore says:

    The worst part of the entire sitchyayshun to me is that the POS in the Casa Blanco phoned her to voice his support.

    Well he had run out of people to apologize to this week, so…

  2. DocOK says:

    I know we are kinds of backwards here in the Midwest, but you can get contraceptives at the evil WalMart for $9 per month. Less than I imagine she spends at Starbucks in week. That’s about $325 for her pills over her law student career, not the $3000 she pulled out of some orifice.

  3. Old Trooper says:

    As the actual story is: She’s an activist that chose to go there for a specific purpose that had nothing to do with law school. She wanted to make a point and like the good little progressives they are, chose to have her testify for that very purpose. She isn’t the sweet little coed that she is being portrayed as. She’s 30 years old, not 23. It was a set-up and the media fell right into their usual bullshit.

  4. Radar Says: Here’s what he said: “What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.”
    ==========

    Actually, HERE is what he said, in full context, with an actual link to the transcript:

    And then there is this story from the Cybercast News Service. Here’s it is. February 29th, Leap Day:

    “A Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they’re going broke, so you and I should pay for their birth control. Speaking at a hearing held by Pelosi to tout Pres. Obama’s mandate that virtually every health insurance plan cover the full cost of contraception and abortion-inducing products, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke said that it’s too expensive to have sex in law school without mandated insurance coverage. Apparently, four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it’s hard to make ends meet if they have to pay for their own contraception, Fluke’s research shows.”

    Can you imagine if you’re her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she’s having so much sex she can’t afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope. “‘Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception), Fluke reported. It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.

    “‘Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,’ Fluke told the hearing. $3,000 for birth control in three years? That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex — and, she wants us to pay for it.” All of this just since January 7th. Just since January 7th. You guys who are thinking you’re not gonna go to college? Let me just say one thing to you: Georgetown. They’re admitting before congressional committee that they’re having so much sex they can’t afford the birth control pills! That’s all you gotta come up with. And all of this is the Republicans’ fault. Sandra Fluke, one of the Butt Sisters, is being dragged out of law school by the hair. Wait ’til Rick Santorum hears about this. Wait ’til Gingrich hears about this! What do you think they’ll do? They’ll put a stop to this right away! They’ll head over that university and they’ll stop it!

    They’ll spy on Sandra Fluke and interrupt her in mid-coitus, and then they’ll make ‘em get married.

    They’ll make ‘em get married and then make ‘em have those babies and make ‘em have 10,000 babies and then stay home…

    Listening to The Troglodytes by The Jimmy Castor Bunch!

    BREAK TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We’re not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that’s right. Pimp’s not the right word. Okay, so she’s not a slut. She’s “round heeled.” I take it back.

    BREAK TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: Well, I guess now we know why Bill Clinton went to Georgetown and why Hillary went to Wellesley. Well, all the sex going on at Georgetown. Sandra Fluke. So much sex going on, they can’t afford birth control pills. She said that to Nancy Pelosi yesterday. Pelosi probably said, “Have you heard what Botox costs? I can relate!”

    END TRANSCRIPT

  5. HM2 FMF-SW Ret. says:

    Michael, you’re right! Taken out of context he just seems like a mush brained dumb ass. Taken in context, it shows how much of a waste of oxygen he is.

  6. HM2 FMF-SW Ret. says:

    I see he’s apologizing so, it must be all good now.

  7. Old Trooper says:

    “Taken in context, it shows how much of a waste of oxygen he is.”

    Not any more of a waste of both time and oxygen that she was in her testimony.

  8. HM2 FMF-SW RET says:

    So let me see if I got this straight, the majority party in congress holds a hearing of an all male panel to discuss religious institutions deciding how they will provide healthcare for and who they will not. A female was excluded without good cause. She then testifies in an unofficial format about uses of contraceptives for purposes other than contraception. limbaugh ceases on the idea that contaceptives are used by people who have sex, assumes that the cost for contraceptives must be relative to the amoount of sx one has and sense congress is governmental she must be asking congress to pay for her sex life therefore she is a slut. So essentially Limbaugh got it wrong all around and did so in his standard dickhead manner.

  9. Old Trooper says:

    Doc; if you don’t get that she is an activist and a plant that was there for a very obvious reason, in order to make the republicans and Catholic church look bad, then you really aren’t being honest. As for Rush calling her a slut; did any of you on the progressive side show this much outrage when Palin was called that, and worse, those so many times during and after the 2008 campaign? Yeah; that would be no.

    This has nothing to do with healthcare, because if she really wanted cheap contraceptives, she could go to Planned Parenthood and get them for a lot less money than she claimed she pays in her testimony. As Claymore said “if you want me out of your sex life, then stop asking me to subsidize it”

    As for dickheads; no need to look any further than Michael Moore.

  10. OWB says:

    So, this Fluke dame describes herself as a slut (or worse) and ascribes slutness (or worse) to 40% of the females at Georgetown and the rest of us are supposed to pretend that even though she is a self-avowed slut her ears are too tender to hear the word used?

    Is that what you are saying?

  11. LL says:

    Joe up there said, “Interesting reading what a bunch of guys think about women’s health and behavior. I wonder what actual women think?”

    Here’s my opinion. First off, Fluke used medical examples. Which is disingenuous because if there are medical reasons for the use of birth control, then it can be coded as such and insurance covers it. Secondly, Fluke’s numbers are off. Using this source, and an assumption that law school lasts 4 years (she testified her number is based upon the full length of law school attendance) even the most expensive method, just the straight birth control pill at max of $50/month, you’re talking $2400. I guess she rounded up or something. Thirdly, the President’s “compromise” is bullshit. He says he’ll pass the cost of “free” BC onto the insurers. I guess he doesn’t understand that insurance is a risk pool and so the purchasers of non-BC coverage also pay indirectly because the money has to come from SOMEWHERE to cover those pills and patches and shots. That would be from premiums paid for all plans. Fourthly, women need to take responsibility for their own damn contraceptives. If you’re so damn worried about getting pregnant, there is only ONE 100% BC method. Abstinence. I saw comments on this one website where a woman said she was taking meds for rhumatoid arthritis and if she gets pregnant, her child may be born with birth defects. Honey, I suggest you don’t have sex. She said even within her marriage, should she ever get married, she will have to be on BC. There’s this thing called an IUD which ends up being cheaper than condoms in the long run. Look into it. If you choose not to educate yourself and choose to have sex, I figure you get what you deserve cuz you’re a dumbass.

    There, that’s my opinion from a female perspective.

  12. LL says:

    This has nothing to do with healthcare, because if she really wanted cheap contraceptives, she could go to Planned Parenthood and get them for a lot less money than she claimed she pays in her testimony. As Claymore said “if you want me out of your sex life, then stop asking me to subsidize it”

    Old Trooper, you know the federal government subsidizes PP, right? We all pay, regardless. Which again, is BS in my opinion!

  13. OWB says:

    The DC health department will ship FREE condoms to residents of the district: http://www.dchealth.dc.gov/doh/cwp/view,a,3,q,604502.asp. If you simply click around a minimal amount at that site, you can find all sorts of sources of free birth control/condoms.

    I keep wondering just what sort of contraception this slut is using that costs this much. Gold plated IUD’s perhaps?

  14. NHSparky says:

    I see he’s apologizing so, it must be all good now.

    Hey doc–you think Ed Shultz will ever get around to apologizing to Laura Ingraham for calling her a slut? Or to all the pundits who called Sarah Palin a slut (or worse)?

    Yeah, didn’t think so.

  15. NHSparky Says: Hey doc–you think Ed Shultz will ever get around to apologizing to Laura Ingraham for calling her a slut? Or to all the pundits who called Sarah Palin a slut (or worse)?

    Yeah, didn’t think so.
    ==========
    Let’s not forget about Obama’s top donor, Bill Maher, and him calling Sarah Palin a c*nt… and explaining that he has the full right to do that, since he’s on HBO.

    Interesting how there is no outcry from the Left to get Obama to call Sarah Palin and stand in solidarity with her, and then call Bill Maher and tell him he is rejecting his $1mil donation. But apparently Obama is not the President of all Americans, just politically active Democrat hacks, so his ‘outrage’ is selective.

    Just typical hypocritical liberal bullshit. The Left doesn’t care that Rush said ‘slut’, they just care about using this issue in an effort to keep their power. It’s all a distraction from their total destruction of our economy, energy industry and foreign policy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *