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

Jaekus wrote:

Our posts on here do not widely influence how people think. Limbaugh's comments on the radio, do.

There's zero difference. If I grab a megaphone and insult people in public is it any different than if I went up to them each individually and did it that way? No.

HITNRUNXX wrote:

How is it any different than the armchair opinions that everyone on this site throws out on every person that speaks out for something? He is on the air, we are on the internet. If his opinions are slander, than all of our opinions are liable... Think real seriously about what it means to NOT be allowed to say what you think about someone.

Personally, I think he had no reason to personally attack her, but I also think that is his opinion, and IN CONTEXT it was on topic... An unmarried student that has sex three or four times a day and thinks that is normal could very well be called a slut... A Nympho... A sex-addict... Horny... etc.

So flipping what was said around: Can he silence someone by calling them names? Maybe so, and that sucks. Should we censor him because it hurts our widdle feelings? No, he is entitled to his opinion, just like everyone else.

In legal terms, she opened the door.

He isn't an armchair commenter. He is a paid one with sponsors, large audience, he is a public figure and holds influence.

He also called her a prostitute. Is that fair to say?

He is entitled to his opinion. But presenting it to an audience with character attacks based on zero evidence on a private citizen, in legal terms is slander and defamation. Which newsflash, is illegal.

It's not about being nice.

Jay wrote:

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.

She is a lobbyist. She has a pet issue and she stood before Congress to convince them to support her cause. She's as much a private citizen as whoever runs Greenpeace or MoveOn.

Even if she was a 'private citizen', she's just as open to insults as anyone else. I can call you a fucking moron (and I have, many many times here) anytime I want to. Are you going to sue me for libel? No.

It amazes me that you're not even American and yet you are as staunchly Democrat as a New York City Jew. So weird.

She was never in the public spot light. Would anyone even know who she was had Rush not attacked her? You said no.

So explain how the above reconciles with her being a public figure.

Last edited by AussieReaper (2012-03-06 05:41:23)

Obviously it's because Limbaugh made her a public figure he is then allowed to defame her.

Jaekus wrote:

It's not about being nice.

Yes it is. He called her a bad name. He was mean. That's become the story rather than her ridiculous numbers and entitled attitude. She deserved to be destroyed in public based on her message, but it's instead been turned around on Rush. Too bad.

Here is some of what she said

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.

Is sex voluntary? Yes. It's also cheaper than she makes it out to be.

- She could have the men she sleeps with pay for half of the birth control
- She could use condoms instead, which cost about $50 for a 100 pack (or go to Planned Parenthood and get them for free). She could have sex three times a day, every day, for $0.50*3timesaday*3years*365days=$1,642.50 or half of what she has her hand out begging for.
- Or she could go to WalMart and buy generic brand birth control for $4 a month. $4*3*12=$144 and she's covered for the whole three years.

She may not be a slut, but she's certainly an entitled moron who deserved to get slapped down for her shit ideas.

Jaekus wrote:

Obviously it's because Limbaugh made her a public figure he is then allowed to defame her.

She voluntarily stood before Congress. She was on C-SPAN. She made herself a public figure.

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Obviously it's because Limbaugh made her a public figure he is then allowed to defame her.

She voluntarily stood before Congress. She was on C-SPAN. She made herself a public figure.

that's semantic bullshit. a citizen voicing an opinion is not a politician running for elected office. c-span is not access hollywood you muppet, and limbaugh is now reaping what he's sown.

Macbeth wrote:

Public figures do not deserve and are not untitled to respect regardless of their political affiliation. Rush doesn't have any sort of responsibility to the public to not defame a public or political figures.

This whole thing is just another instance of the pussification of American society. I'm not joking. This sort of irrational melodramatic response to Rush calling a women a slut is the sort of thing that makes our culture and country look weak and stupid.

I think it just makes us look bored.

Technically, Fluke could sue for defamation.  Should she?  Not really.

I wouldn't say our society is being "pussified", but we are ridiculously litigious.

On the other hand, Rush did basically put himself in a vulnerable position by choosing to call her a slut.  Even if he doesn't face a lawsuit, he's just pushed himself further in the Howard Stern direction.  He may appeal to right wingers, but he's essentially given the left wing fodder for the "conservatives are misogynists" angle.

He hasn't quite reached the Glenn Beck level of embarassment, but he's getting there.

A lot of right wingers have been pointing out that Bill Maher hasn't apologized in the past for his insults to women, but I think they're missing the point.  Bill Maher isn't really respected outside of the left wing now.

Turquoise wrote:

On the other hand, Rush did basically put himself in a vulnerable position by choosing to call her a slut.

he's not losing advertisers because he called her a slut. he's losing them because he went on to say that she should post her sextapes to the internet, because if "we" pay for her contraception, "we" should get our monies worth.

one of the most unintended, brilliant moves obama has made was to mandate contraception. women voters are well aware that the little blue pill is covered, but to see the right react both religiously and fiscally conservatively in regard to contraception just drew a sharper contrast amongst a big block of voters.

13urnzz wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

On the other hand, Rush did basically put himself in a vulnerable position by choosing to call her a slut.

he's not losing advertisers because he called her a slut. he's losing them because he went on to say that she should post her sextapes to the internet, because if "we" pay for her contraception, "we" should get our monies worth.

one of the most unintended, brilliant moves obama has made was to mandate contraception. women voters are well aware that the little blue pill is covered, but to see the right react both religiously and fiscally conservatively in regard to contraception just drew a sharper contrast amongst a big block of voters.

They should cover other voluntary health items too then right? Tattoo removal, breast implants, calf implants, vasectomies etc.

Last edited by Jay (2012-03-06 09:03:24)

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

It's not about being nice.

Yes it is. He called her a bad name. He was mean. That's become the story rather than her ridiculous numbers and entitled attitude. She deserved to be destroyed in public based on her message, but it's instead been turned around on Rush. Too bad.

Here is some of what she said

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.

Is sex voluntary? Yes. It's also cheaper than she makes it out to be.

- She could have the men she sleeps with pay for half of the birth control
- She could use condoms instead, which cost about $50 for a 100 pack (or go to Planned Parenthood and get them for free). She could have sex three times a day, every day, for $0.50*3timesaday*3years*365days=$1,642.50 or half of what she has her hand out begging for.
- Or she could go to WalMart and buy generic brand birth control for $4 a month. $4*3*12=$144 and she's covered for the whole three years.

She may not be a slut, but she's certainly an entitled moron who deserved to get slapped down for her shit ideas.

lol seriously who the fuck spends 3000 dollars for birth control a year =.=

GF pays 20 bucks for 3 months worth so thats like what, 80 bucks a year?

Macbeth wrote:

Well, Taiwan is like a third world country so that makes sense

That'd only apply if I'm actually living in Taiwan now

edit: I've been in Aus for the past year macbeth.

Last edited by Cybargs (2012-03-06 09:20:21)