Rush Limbaugh calls Georgetown Law student a "slut" and "prostitute"

But she was speaking of a horrible economic burden....per planned parenthood

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm

Even at $50 a month that is under $2 a day or less than the cost of a Starbucks coffee...

Oh the horror...how can women afford such a burden?

 

No one can make her attend Georgetown if Hooker U offers free contraceptions and it doesn't.

She could go there instead.

 

Does it say 'must purchase' anywhere? If not she should shop around...

 

1st amendment does not protect from civil law, which is where a slander/defamation type suit would be filed.

To review civil law is when one private entity sues another. In this case the girl and Rush. The first amendment protects Rush from the government punishing him over the nonsense he spews, no one is suggesting he should be put in jail or fined by the government, though the FCC does have some say in the content of the public airwaves. I don't think this case merits FCC intervention, now if Rush had a nip slip by all means the FCC should protect the public from that accordingly.

 

It is a interesting balance issue, which I have not strongly decided a position upon.

But your proposition that an organization can essentially do whatever it wants because it is religious based is not accurate.

A religious institution that holds itself out as open to the public and receives public funds (like I think Georgetown does) cannot discriminate against people based upon their religion. Thus, Georgetown does not, and I believe cannot, exclude a Jewish student because the student is Jewish, even if it was against their religious tenants to admit Jewish students into their school.

So yes. If you are an entity, and at least if you are going to accept public funds, then the Govt does have a right to apply certain rules.

 

Truth, as in a serious perusal of her claims, is a defense against defamation.

 

M'eh Rush will get away with it on the Flynt v US ruling. On the otherhand the girl in question isn't a public figure open for that type for satire. So I guess it could go either way?

 

Does it allow her to lie to a congressional committee. Does it preclude radio personalities from using humor from being used to note the lies?

 

I applaud his comments - but I rail against political correctness - so that would be the sort of thing I think is funny. This woman is a strident leftist, and she's trying to claim that her birth control should be paid for by others. She's trying to claim that it's not affordable. It's BS, and everyone knows it's BS. You can get contraception for free if you look enough, and you can get it for very little cost if you even look at all.

If contraceptives aren't affordable, she literally must be focking herself poor - hence the slut/prostitute comment.

And I think it's funny, and I additionally enjoy all the faux outrage and whining from the left about it.

 

Don't follow the logic. Why must she be doing that?

I suppose to some calling a woman a slut is funny.

 

You attack the terms used but not the point made...she has a host of other possibilities for insurance. She does not have to rely on the schools program.

Game, set, match

 

I don't agree. If there is supposed to be separation of Church and State, how can a religious institution accept government funding? I will admit I don't know much about Georgetown or their funding.

If a self insured religious institution does not accept government funding but is forced to pay for contraception against their will, is that not government interference in religious freedom?

 

Um...because in order to require enough prophylactics to have an affordability problem with it requires her to be a rabbit slut/prostitute.

Nah. Just a leftist slut.

 

That is true but to prove defamation she would have to explain why lying about her costs should be safe from the humorous application of criticism by that broadcast personality.

 

It is not a question of whether she has to or not, but whether, or in what circumstances, a religious institution can impose its religiously based rules against persons who are not members of that religion, or at least do not feel obliged to follow that religious rule.

 

So using health insurance that we both agree has been paid for some kinda way is getting free stuff? Wow that is a misguided opinion.

 

I believe testifying before congress opens her up to a review of that testimony.

 

Ok let me get this straight ... it's OK by the 1st amendment to call Rush to call a person he never met in his life, on National Radio a Slut ... but it's NOT OK for this student to speak to our Elected Officials?

Do I have this view correct?

 

Source

What Limbaugh did was slander. I hope she sues.

 

About as funny as these:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/ig/Sarah-Palin-Pictures/Slutty-Palin.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/09/sarah-palin-letterman-pre_n_213456.html
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bristol-Palin-is-a-hypocritical-worthless-slut/149060591807079
http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f54/explosve-palin-covers-slut-daughter-838243/
http://toryaardvark.com/2011/01/10/david-letterman-calls-sarah-palin-a-slut/

 

Why did she go to Georgetown in the first place?

 

This is another black mark against ObamaCare.

We should not have a dictator who can arbitrarily proclaim what private insurance companies can or cannot offer their customers.

 

Interesting thought -- I don't think Rush has that right at all. Even though folks in the media have a qualified privilege as to their statements, calling a woman a slut based on these circumstances is probably "per se" slander if she deemed to sue him.

 

No, but who's surprised?