We're All Sluts Now

I don't feel like giving the stupid Limbaugh-Fluke issue more than it deserves. Let's just say Fluke isn't exactly "wholesome" as Dowd insipidly asserted (whatever the shit she meant by that) or "brave" as someone wrote at the WAPO.

Get real. Cut the bull.

Nor was Limbaugh exactly conveying the facts of the testimony properly. To do so, and launch an ad hominen attack, well, he deserves criticism for that.

 For the life of me, I don't know why he chose that route because, I suppose, there was enough material for him to dissect and argue against her testimony.

Still. It's not like this kind of shock punditry never happens. Nah.

*Faints*

At this point I defer to First Amendment attorney Marc Randazza.

Interesting arguments. Here are some exceprts from the link to Citizen Media Law Project:

"...When you purposely inject yourself into public debate, you lose your status as a "just minding my own business" private citizen.

When a plaintiff alleging defamation is a public figure, he or she must show that the allegedly false statements were made with actual malice – that is, knowing falsity, or a reckless disregard for the truth. N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964); Town of Massena v. Healthcare Underwriters Mut. Ins. Co., 779 N.E.2d 167, 171 (N.Y. 2002). "

"...Fluke was testifying before Congress, on national TV, in a debate that she willingly ran toward. She purposely dove into the spotlight, and if the spotlight burned her, that's her problem – not my beloved Constitution's problem..."

"Yes, literally, Rush Limbaugh said that Sandra Fluke was a "prostitute." However, it should not take too high of a degree of sophistication to understand the difference between actually accusing someone of being a harlot of the night, who takes money for sex, and calling someone a prostitute in the exercise of rhetorical hyperbole."

"...This incident is unfortunate for those on the Left who have, at least since 2000, considered their side of the aisle to be the place where free speech can feel safe and secure. It has exposed the liberal and academic Left to be as hypocritical and as bad as the dirty Right wing when it comes to free speech. Sandra Fluke's statements were worthy of some criticism, and I lobbed some of my own. Rush Limbaugh could have done a much better job of criticizing Ms. Fluke. But, the fact is that those on the left, defamation lawyers trolling for clients, and Rush Limbaugh haters alike have set aside their desire to understand or support free expression in a hysterical pile-on of the prick from Palm Beach.

They are all wrong. They are not only wrong on the law, but they are also morally wrong because someone, somewhere out there is listening to them – and will believe that when someone gets butthurt, that they are a victim, and that someone has to pay for their thin-skinned indignation in court.
And then we all lose...."

The discussion continues on his blog.

As for the freedom of speech stuff. Personally, as I weigh all the arguments from both sides, it still points to limiting free speech (and in some cases depending how you structure your argument "tyranny of the majority") if you're apt to believe so.

I can't stand a lot of junk that's said on both sides but for me to actually pick one over the other in an effort to censor them? THAT would be intellectually dishonest of me. Not to say, immoral.

In these times, even Juvenal would have been threatened with a law suit.