BF2S Forums Virgina about to pass law that may force vaginal probe for abortion

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.

Jaekus wrote:

Good on her.

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.

Last edited by Macbeth (2012-03-05 13:17:49)

Macbeth wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Good on her.

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.

No fuck her. Seriously F-U-C-K her.

This whole thing makes me red eyed and furious. If you felt bad for her you are a media sheep.

Turquoise wrote:

Perhaps, but if you listen to Rush, you are too.

There are a million other more important issues than this mess, but the media loves a good soap opera story.

jsnipy wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

If I was her I would be suing ...

very American

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

very American

I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't want compensation after being slandered in such a way on not just a national but now global attack against your character since this has made global news.

Would she be wrong to claim that she was unfairly labelled?

Freedom of speech. And how was she unfairly labelled? Has she divulged the details of her sex life to you?

Last edited by AussieReaper (2012-03-06 05:07:37)

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

Freedom of speech. And how was she unfairly labelled? Has she divulged the details of her sex life to you?

Freedom of speech doesn't cover character assassinations does it?

"Law student Sandra Fluke can "definitely" sue Rush Limbaugh for slander over the talk-show host's ugly remarks on his radio program, legal experts say. "

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/ … 9420120306

No it doesn't.

What he’s really trying to do is silence a young woman. See that works both ways.

I don't see how you're defending Limbaugh. Unless she is a prostitute, his remarks were defamation in every sense of the word.

She doesn't have the same right to privacy as other people in a situation like that. She chose to step before Congress and make herself a public figure. We have about 100 celebrity magazines that talk about their sex lives and various body parts and they aren't sued for libel, even when they fabricate stuff. People that put themselves in the public spotlight, especially on a political issue, have to roll with the punches. Or stay the fuck home.

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Freedom of speech doesn't cover character assassinations does it?

"Law student Sandra Fluke can "definitely" sue Rush Limbaugh for slander over the talk-show host's ugly remarks on his radio program, legal experts say. "

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/ … 9420120306

No it doesn't.

What he’s really trying to do is silence a young woman. See that works both ways.

I don't see how you're defending Limbaugh. Unless she is a prostitute, his remarks were defamation in every sense of the word.

She doesn't have the same right to privacy as other people in a situation like that. She chose to step before Congress and make herself a public figure. We have about 100 celebrity magazines that talk about their sex lives and various body parts and they aren't sued for libel, even when they fabricate stuff. People that put themselves in the public spotlight, especially on a political issue, have to roll with the punches. Or stay the fuck home.

Really? You're arguing that she is not a private citizen? She isn't a public figure. Isn't a celebrity, not a polititian either.

Private citizens are entitled to stronger protections against slander because the above lead highly visible lives. She does not.

If anyone who steps up as you say and is suddenly the target of personal attacks, then people like Limbaugh can effectively silence them through intimidation tactics and smear. How is that in anyway fair in your mind? "Roll with the punches or stay the fuck home" Seriously?

Last edited by Jay (2012-03-06 05:18:17)

Last edited by Jaekus (2012-03-06 05:28:28)

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

She is a political activist that stood before Congress to testify on her pet issue. She is a lobbyist. A poor one, but a lobbyist. No, she has no special right to privacy anymore than a politician does.

As for intimidation, she's profiting from this. Would she have gone on The View otherwise? Would anyone even know who she is? No. If Rush had intimidated her she'd have gone back home. Instead, she's using it as a platform to boost herself even more fully into the political sphere. Sorry, I have less than zero compassion for her.

She isn't a lobbyist. What special interest group pays her to represent them? She is a private citizen and only in the political spotlight at such a level now, because of Rush's attacks. You even make this argument by saying she can now profit from the added media attention. You said it yourself, would anyone even know who she is? No.

So your argument goes "she's a public figure so not classed as a private citizen" freedom of speech applies.

Then go on to state "nobody would know who she is without Rush's attacks"

You're incredibly dense if you think you can argue these two contradictory points.