President Obama calls Sandra Fluke

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Earlier this afternoon, Sandra Fluke received a personal phone call from President Obama, two days after she was called a "slut" on Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Ms Fluke attends the prestigious Georgetown University (a Jesuit school) and its president released earlier today a letter of support for Ms. Fluke, strongly critical of Mr. Limbaugh's comments, calling them "vile and misogynistic." Ms. Fluke broke the news about her call from the President during an interview on Andrea Mitchell's show. Fluke was the woman who was to testify before the Republican House Committee hearing but was denied by Darryl Issa, who instead had an all male panel testify on the subject of birth control and freedom of religion. A week later, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi held a non-binding hearing and asked Ms. Fluke to appear. Rush Limbaugh went on the offensive on his radio show and "...demanded that Fluke release tapes of her having sex in exchange for the contraception that she argued should be covered by employers." Fluke said the President's phone call was completely unexpected and added "What was really personal for me was that he said to tell my parents that they should be proud. And that meant a lot because Rush Limbaugh questioned whether or not my family would be proud of me. So I just appreciated that very much."

Joe Scarborough, a former conservative Republican member of the United States House of Representatives stated in an interview, he's had several conversations with what he described as "fire breathing conservatives" going into panic mode over the recent news cycles painting Republicans as opposed to women's rights and birth control when instead they are allowing President Obama off the hook, and thinks the election will be lost because of the focus on issues that don't matter, and were settled years ago.

It seems that the some in the Republican party are so intent on pushing it more to the right, at the expense of moderate and women voters, the chances of winning the Senate back (Olympia Snowe's retirement all but guarantees that her seat will go to a Democrat), or winning the White House are going to be severely crippled (this has happened already in a key state, Virginia, which has seen a significant movement by independent and women voters from Romney to President Obama because of the forced ultrasound amendment for abortions). While Rush Limbaugh doesn't speak for all conservatives obviously, he is the face for one of the largest audiences in talk radio, and the massive condemnation, he's now receiving should wake him up, or at least give him pause for making such reckless statements

Comments

[paft.livejournal.com]

It still broadens the term to the point where anyone who posted or even just connented frequently kn a blog would count as "public figure."

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Perhaps. That's why I said that she "may" be a public figure. This is a national debate, and she wasn't posting on a blog, she was asked to testify to Congress - and then fought them to be able to actually testify.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Which still stretches the use of the term beyond reasonable bounds.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I'm not concerned with "reasonable" as defined by you, but with the legal realities. Law is not always or even mostly reasonable to everyone's tastes.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Even within "legal realities" it's unreasonable.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

You keep saying that, but have yet to cite a case. I'll do that for you. "[A]n individual [who] voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues." Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.,, 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974). The standard developed further, as expressed by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, is that "[t]o be considered a limited public figure an individual must have voluntarily injected himself into a particular public controversy in an attempt to influence its outcome" (emphasis added). Lyons v. New Mass Media, Inc., 390 Mass. 51, 55 (1983) (citing Gertz, 418 U.S. 323 at 352). It appears to me that she thus qualifies as a limited public figure under that standard.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Those cases involved a lawyer actively involved in a controversial case and a labor leader. This case would involve a student who spoke once before congress. Not really comparable. And for the record, Limbaugh was sued in the 1990s by a nurse he libeled in his book. The fact that she had appeared on the talk show circuit did not get the case thrown out on the grounds that she was a public figure. Rush ended up settling out of court.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

One of the first things I learned in law school was that settlements rarely reflect anything about the validity of the opposing case, aside from its ability to state a claim that could, if proven, merit relief. In general, settlements are more about the high cost of litigation. Since we have no loser-pays system, you pay all those lawyers a huge amount of money to do hundreds of hours of legal prep work for a trial, regardless of if you win or not. It's often cheaper to pay them for a few days' negotiations and a lump sum rather than take it to trial and win.

The fact that she had appeared on the talk show circuit did not get the case thrown out on the grounds that she was a public figure.

I believe, unless you can give me a better source, that you're misreading the complaint or facts. From this AP article (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=894&dat=19940213&id=f3cxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pn0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2865,1681128), it appears that the woman suing was doing so because she was not the woman Rush sought to identify. This other woman had appeared on talk shows and the like, but the plaintiff's name was falsely assigned to that individual.

[paft.livejournal.com]

anm: I believe, unless you can give me a better source, that you're misreading the complaint or facts. From this AP article, it appears that the woman suing was doing so because she was not the woman Rush sought to identify. This other woman had appeared on talk shows and the like, but the plaintiff's name was falsely assigned to that individual.

Even so, the case was not rejected, even though the woman had appeared on television. Rush was forced to settle. No, that has nothing to do with the actual merits of her case, but whether or not the case was merited isn't really the point except when it comes to the definition of "public figure." If this woman was not defined as a public figure, I find it hard to believe that Fluke would be.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Did you read my definition of "public figure," or the article I linked? It's about matters of public concern, whereas civil suits are generally private ones unless the government is a party. So even assuming that she's appearing on TV over the issue, there's no way that she would've qualified as a public figure. Also, AFAIK (see the article in my last comment) the plaintiff didn't actually appear on TV, because Rush was using her name to describe someone else entirely, who *did* appear on TV. It was a mis-identification issue.