This is rich. Jane Fonda is one three "feminist activists" who think the government should crack down on Rush Limbaugh:
Their argument is that Mr. Limbaugh’s use of the words “slut” and “prostitute” to describe Georgetown University Law student Sandra Fluke is par for Rush’s rhetorical course. He uses words like that all the time, they say.
He promotes language that deliberately dehumanizes his targets, they say.
If pressure on sponsors does not cause Clean Channel Communications to drop Limbaugh’s show, then the FCC should step in, Steinem, Morgan, and Fonda argue. Radio stations are supposed to use their licenses “in the public interest.” If enough listeners complain about Limbaugh, then the stations that carry him could be denied license renewal, according to the three women.
Jane Fonda, who should get down on her knees and thank God every day that she isn't rotting in prison for her treasonous broadcasts from enemy territory duuring the Vietnam War, considers herself a credible judge of speech that goes too far?
UPDATE: I neglected to link to the article I quoted from. This is it.
Comments
Hanoi Jane would have a better case, arguing that NewsCorp's ciminal invasion of people's voicemail accounts makes it unfit to own Fox TV stations. Limbaugh is crude, rude, and offensive, but as far as I can tell, perfectly within his first amendment rights.
Those three are getting a little ahead of themselves. Spewing bile and hate on a professional level may be wretched, but no cause or legitimate reason for government intervention.
That's what the economy of the Marketplace of Ideas is for, and it seems to be working:
For the Next Two Weeks, Rush Limbaugh Won’t Have National Advertisers
Right after releasing an ever-growing-list companies that don’t want anything to do with Rush Limbaugh on Monday (the count is at 140), the broadcaster’s distributor has sent out a memo telling affiliates to suspend national advertising spots for the next two weeks.
Though Premiere Radio Networks did not specifically comment on why the suspension was needed, but it does address one problem in particular: In the past week, several companies were unaware that their ads had aired during Limbaugh’s show in the wake of his comments about Sandra Fluke
Trying to get Rush thrown off the air because you don't like him is silly and counterproductive. It makes those women look shrill and small-minded. The same First Amendment that lets Rush say outrageous things continues to protect the many unpopular things these ladies have said.
Although he denies it, he is clearly losing advertisers, which will kill his show a lot faster than the FCC. Furthermore, while Rush clearly broke no law, he did defame Ms. Fluke, who was not (at the time) a public figure. If she wishes, she would almost certain prevail in a lawsuit against him.
An articulate, 30-year-old law student makes a very sympathetic plaintiff.
F. Lee Littlejohn posits: "Furthermore, while Rush clearly broke no law, he did defame Ms. Fluke, who was not (at the time) a public figure. If she wishes, she would almost certain prevail in a lawsuit against him.
An articulate, 30-year-old law student makes a very sympathetic plaintiff."
She wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of prevailing. The minute she stepped in front of that microphone at a fake news conference at the behest of the democrat party and the Oblama re-election campaign she became fair game. In addition to that, the dems would NEVER let her sue because "discovery" would expose ALL her past (dorm skeletons and all) and ALL her connections to dem operatives, causes, and the various politicians she & they are in bed with (pun intended).
She'd end up bloodied far worse than she appears now, just a hack tool sacrificed for Teh One.
I'll give her credit for guts though, can you imagine what it took to stand before an entire nation and admit you are a 30 year old woman college graduate, in a $60,000 a year Ivy League Law School and instead of giving up the equivalent of 2 cups of Starbucks ($9.00) a month to buy birth control at Walmart or Target (or even free at Planned Parenthood) you'd rather the University change their policy, disavow their religious tenets, and pay your 9 bucks month so you can have worry free sex.
Her parents must be soooooo proud.
"She wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of prevailing. The minute she stepped in front of that microphone at a fake news conference at the behest of the democrat party and the Oblama re-election campaign she became fair game. In addition to that, the dems would NEVER let her sue because "discovery" would expose ALL her past (dorm skeletons and all) and ALL her connections to dem operatives, causes, and the various politicians she & they are in bed with (pun intended)."
What, you didn't want to let Rush have all the fun, so you had to get your speculative accusations in?
" I'll give her credit for guts though, can you imagine what it took to stand before an entire nation and admit you are a 30 year old woman college graduate, in a $60,000 a year Ivy League Law School and instead of giving up the equivalent of 2 cups of Starbucks ($9.00) a month to buy birth control at Walmart or Target (or even free at Planned Parenthood) you'd rather the University change their policy, disavow their religious tenets, and pay your 9 bucks month so you can have worry free sex."
Actually, that was not her testimony. Here's the transcript:
Hearing on women’s reproductive health and contraception before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee held on Feb. 23, 2012
Transcript of testimony by Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown University Law School, a private Jesuit institution:
“Leader [Nancy] Pelosi, members of Congress, good morning. And thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and for allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation.
“My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third-year student at Georgetown Law School. I’m also a past-president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. And I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them so much for being here today.
(Applause)
“We, as Georgetown LSRJ, are here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the non-partisan medical advice of the Institute of Medicine.
“I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage in its student health plan. And just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously-affiliated hospitals and institutions and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens.
“We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.
“Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic or Jesuit institutions.
“When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage.
“And especially in the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear yet from another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously-affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially and emotionally and medically because of this lack of coverage.
“And so, I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them – not me – to be heard.
“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, 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. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.
“One told us about how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn’t afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.
“Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore. Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.
“And some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s just not true.
“Women’s health clinic provide a vital medical service, but as the Guttmacher Institute has definitely documented, these clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing, and women are being forced to go without the medical care they need.
“How can Congress consider the [Rep. Jeff] Fortenberry (R-Neb.), [Sen. Marco] Rubio (R-Fla.) and [Sen. Roy] Blunt (R-Mo.) legislation to allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraception coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to de-fund those very same clinics?
“These denial of contraceptive coverage impact real people.
“In the worst cases, women who need these medications for other medical conditions suffer very dire consequences.
“A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.
“Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt’s amendment, Sen. Rubio’s bill or Rep. Fortenberry’s bill there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.
“When this exception does exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, women’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.
“In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescription and whether they were lying about their symptoms.
“For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.
“After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.
“I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of the night in her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room. She’d been there all night in just terrible, excruciating pain. She wrote to me, ‘It was so painful I’d woke up thinking I’ve been shot.’
“Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result.
“On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she was sitting in a doctor’s office, trying to cope with the consequences of this medical catastrophe.
“Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats and weight gain and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32-years-old.
“As she put it, ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies simply because the insurance policy that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school, wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’
“Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at such an early age – increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis – she may never be able to conceive a child.
“Some may say that my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. I wish it were
“One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that can’t be proven without surgery. So the insurance has not been willing to cover her medication – the contraception she needs to treat her endometriosis.
“Recently, another woman told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome and she’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it.
“Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medications since last August.
“I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.
“Because this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends: A woman’s reproductive health care isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority.
“One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered on the insurance and she assumed that that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handle all of women’s reproductive and sexual health care. So when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor, even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections, because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that – something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health.
“As one other student put it: ‘This policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’
“These are not feelings that male fellow student experience and they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.
“In the media lately, some conservative Catholic organizations have been asking what did we expect when we enroll in a Catholic school?
“We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success.
“We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of ‘cura personalis‘ – to care for the whole person – by meeting all of our medical needs.
“We expected that when we told our universities of the problem this policy created for us as students, they would help us.
“We expected that when 94% of students oppose the policy the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for – completely unsubsidized by the university.
“We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that we should have gone to school elsewhere.
“And even if that meant going to a less prestigious university, we refuse to pick between a quality education and our health. And we resent that in the 21st century, anyone think it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.
“Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared today are Catholic women. So ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for the access to the health care we need.
“The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and the universities appreciate the modifications to the rule announced recently. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the health care they need. And I sincerely hope that that is something we can all agree upon.
“Thank you very much.”
http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/02/23/transcript-sandra-fluke-testifies-on-why-women-should-be-allowed-access-to-contraception-and-reproductive-health-care/
Christopher, I missed your analysis of the defamation claim. What do you think, should she sue Rush and, if she did, would she prevail? Please enlighten me, I respect your opinion on libel issues.
There's no reason you shouldn't, after all, there's no point in having a law regular people can't understand. How would they ever obey it?
In any case, she probably became a vortex public figure at the least when she testified, though since she went out of her way to do so when denied access to the republican hearing, she probably went straight on to regular public figure.
You've been a public figure for years, you ought to know they have far less protection than regular private persons or even vortex public figures. So she probably wouldn't have much of a case. Technically, Rush didn't even make a serious specific allegation of a specific crime.
You know, like the declared satire Glenn Beck and later yourself were subjected to, which wasn't found to be actionable... being obvious, specifically declared satire.
It's possible that Limbaugh could win a defamation case on grounds that his accusations were not credible. Courts say that if nobody believes a slur - say, that Joe Blow is a son of a bitch, despite the fact that dogs don't give birth to humans - there is no defamation. Is there anyone out there so clueless to think you need to have more presciptive birth control for a lot of sex than for a little?
Even if Fluke were to prevail on defamation, what could she hope to win in damages? Largely through Limbaugh's attack, Fluke is now recognized as a well-spoke young lawyer in training. She could have a best-seller written by a ghost. Law firms would offer her substantially higher salaries to start, compared to what she could have expected two months ago.
Meanwhile, Rebekah Brooks and four others were arrested today in the phone hacking scheme being run by Rupert Murdoch's empire. It's getting easier and easier to imagine the FCC moving against the licenses held by Fox.
Hmmm, I think you fine fellows could be mistaken. Gloria Alred seems to think you are. Seems to me that such a blast as Limbaugh's is presumed damages as in Libel per Se. The argument that she could suffer a benefit rather than detriment is an interesting one, but speculative. The case could actually turn on how she feels about the subject of her future versus his statements. Now what if the comment actually rumored serious felonies (murder), serious illness (like pedophilia), serious professional incompetence (like a complete breach with a former employer) and serious sexual misconduct (rape)? Seems to me like the question of whether that was mere entertainnment (the Rush Defense) or a-ok since others did it (the CapnSwing defense) would be a question for the jury in a time when the politics of personal destruction is being eschewed? A sobering question that probably should be tested in court, dontcha think?
Well, practicing lawyers have gone over each, and one of those cases has already been decided, so I don't think there's need for much worry on anyone's side. Just talking about it incessantly is a lame attempt at intimidation . XD
First, I am not suggesting Ms. Fluke should sue Limbaugh, I merely pointed out that she has that option. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been a plaintiff in a defamation suit, and I was ruled not to be a public figure even though I wrote a column for the local newspaper. I prevailed, by the way.
Further, Mr. Limbaugh most certainly did accuse Ms. Fluke of illegal behavior: He called her a "prostitute." Prostitution is illegal in every state except Nevada.
I doubt that she could prove much in actual financial damage, but she might do quite well in terms of punitive damages, especially if her lawyers manage to keep dittoheads off the jury. My guess is that Limbaugh, who is quite wealthy, would quickly settle to make the matter go away.
And thanks for the compliment, William Jennings Zank.
Thank you for that first hand analysis, LittleJohn. I find it more than encouraging.
LittleJohn, do you mind giving your attorney an attaboy for a fine result here on the boards? I would like to know who it was.
For what it's worth, houses of prostitution were legal in the state of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations from 1980 until recently.
And curiously, although one can't get married at that age, one was permitted to work in a whorehouse at age 14.