sounds about right....don't settle for less.

His net worth is $350 million. She needs to hit him for a good percentage of that.

Or sue for specific performance - that means not for money but for some specific acts on his part. Decide what she wants him to do to make her whole. Maybe require a factual statement in every broadcast and public appearance about women's health issues.

But money is good. A WHOLE LOT of money is better. If it were me, I'd force him to set up and fund a foundation the proceeds of which would benefit Planned Parenthood in perpetuity.

Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2012, 10:59 AM - Edit history (1)

There are three forms of damages: compensatory (actual losses); general (loss of reputation, etc) and punitive (actual malice generally must be shown).

I've never been involved in a libel or slander suit, just in some business disputes, and was remembering from attorney's advice about those. And in more than one of those cases specific performance was what I wanted, not a monetary award.

hit him where it hurts em!

...I beg you Sandra.....

You will prosper.'

a court case would undoubtedly drag out, but Ms. Fluke certainly has a fighting chance of winning, and this swine could permanently be taken off the air. Democratic senators have gone on record as saying Rush has abused the air waves. He has, repeatedly.

by his outrageous behavior; she hasn't lost anything tangible as a consequence, imo.
She might, or might not, obtain an 'official' apology, but he's, allegedly, already done that.

is destroyed. There is no way to quantitate that.

He has done this WITH MALICE. She has an excellent case.

that nothing has changed. Rush only apologized for his choice of words, "slut" and "prostitute." Not for the 3 days he raked her over the coals and lied and lied. She aspires to and deserves her future law career.

In fact, if anything he has enhanced her career.

followers and she has now lost control over her image as he has painted her as a slut which to the mindless morons on the far right, she will always be, forever. She was not a public figure, but now she is, without her consent.

Ten years from now, they will use her name in a negative way. There is no way to stop that, but she should receive some compensation for it. Some day if she has children, eg, and they are googling around, they are likely to find some nasty stuff about their mother.

Even if she gave the money to charity, it is worth doing if for nothing else, as a deterrant against these vile tactics the right uses and all too often gets away with.

However, she hasn't LOST her good name, unless she/we would count the 'mindless morons on the far right' count. THEY may use her name in any way, as they use President Obama's name. So?

I'm not a specialist in defamation law, but I think coming up with an award in such a case would be extremely difficult for a court, beyond the difficulty she would have in arriving at an amount to seek. I believe her unwilling notoriety, in fact, will result in awards to her, of untold nature and amount.

I'm not an attorney at all, but words have consequences. And while Mr. Fluke undoubtedly has much public sympathy on her side, Rush went at her for 3 days running, and other right wing-oriented media outlets are happy to hop on his bandwagon. It is a continuing verbal avalanche being heaped on her 24/7.


slan·der
? ?[slan-der] Show IPA

noun
1.
defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.

2.
a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.

3.
Law . defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.

Defamation, whether libel or slander, is the making public of a false statement about a person that causes damage to their reputation.

Broadly there are four elements that the plaintiff is required to prove in a defamation lawsuit, whether for libel (a defamatory written statement, for example in a newspaper or other publication) or slander (a defamatory spoken statement.) These are as follows:

1.The statement, which must be about another person, must be false.
2.The statement must be ‘published’ to a third party, who cannot also be the person who is being defamed. Publishing in this context does not mean that it must be printed, but purely that the statement has to be ‘made available’ to someone other than the person about whom the statement was made.
3.If the nature of the statement is ‘of public concern’ the person who has published it must be at least liable in negligence. Public figures who seek to prove that they have been defamed must prove an additional element under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, that in publishing the statement the defendant was acting with ‘actual malice’ (by publishing something they know to be a lie) or at least to have a total disregard for whether the statement is true or not.
4.The person about whom the defamatory statement is made must be ‘damaged’ by the statement. In some states, it is sufficient to establish that the plaintiff suffered ‘mental anguish’ as opposed to ‘damage.’

http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/personal-injury/libel-and-slander/elements-required-defamation.htm

The prosecution rests. Thank you.

a slander or libel suit. She seems to meet at least three of them, and depending on which state she is in, the 4th may also apply:

I'm sure it would be a difficult case but if it went to a jury, which most civil suits do not, I think a jury would understand that having a prominent talk show host smear your good name for days, as well as other media outlets, would cause a person to suffer a lot of mental anguish.

However, I do not know anything about the law in this regard, or how often people are successful in such cases.

I do recall though, a case where a poster on an internet board did win a case of defamation. The judge ruled he could not sue the owners of the site, but the individual who smeared him on the site, was held accountable. Since so few people actually witnessed those exchanges, you would think he might have lost, but I guess the judge felt the attacks did cause him enough mental stress to warrant compensation. In her case the defamation was very public so, who knows?

and does not require proof of damages - the injury is presumed.

and she very well might not want to litigate re: chastity/unchastity.

My point, the whole thing is very unpleasant and difficult to litigate, even tho many 'outsiders' want her to do so.

open their fat mouths to slander someone.

Although, I don't know what her losses would be. Do you have to prove economic loss in a case like that? I don't know - any resident attorneys here know? I think the big fat mouth loser in this situation is Rush. Radio stations and sponsors are dropping like flies.

Maybe a high profile lawsuit would serve to scare off current/returning/future advertisers. This is the most serious threat to Rush in his long, abysmal career.

on behalf of the (mostly I believe) FINE, FINE women who have weighed in on this issue in this thread. Most of all for Sandra Fluke whose class and courage become more admirable by the second.

Now go get him! He who shall remain nameless.

on DU.

Any real lawyer worth his or her salt will sit down with her and explain exactly what suing limpy will entail. Among other things, a lawyer will explain that in all likelihood she will be deemed to be a "limited purpose public figure" with respect to the subject matter of limpy's bile and thus will have to show that he either had actual knowledge that she was not "a slut" or "a prostitute" (not that he didn't have knowledge that she was) or acted with reckless disregard with respect to the truth or falsity of his claims.

She will, by suing, open herself up to intrusive discovery and questioning about her sex life since (a) truth is a defense and (b) and such questioning may be relevant to the question of the extent to which her reputation has been damaged (not the fact that it was damaged, which is presumed). In many ways, she will be on trial as much as limpy will be. It will be explained that limpy will argue that his comments were hyperbole and should not be treated as actionable. Assuming that she can prevail over limpy's delay tactics and his aggressive discovery (and I think that she might be able to), the case would likely be appealed and limpy will use it as a marketing tool and to claim to be on the correct side of the first amendment (the fact that this is bs won't stop him from doing it or stop some people from believing it). If she finally does win, insurance probably will cover some (but not all) of Limpy's cost and limpy's backers won't be convinced that he was wrong. The good news is that if she prevails on an actual malice theory, she could collect a large sum in punitive damages -- not enough to bankrupt limpy, but a nice sum for her to distribute to causes she cares about. On the other hand, if she loses -- and remember, if its a jury trial, the outcome will be unpredictable (for example what if there is a prudish juror that is offended by what is turned up about her past sex life). If she does lose, she loses a lot -- the victory she has won in the court of public opinion today will be tainted and she will forever be known not as the woman who was ruthlessly attacked by limpy, but as yet another woman that was name called by Rush but failed to convince a jury he had done anything wrong.

After receiving all of that advice and more, she will make a decision and I would hope we would all support her whatever that decision turns out to be.