I recently wrote a column on how the West is curtailing free speech under blasphemy, hate speech, and anti-discrimination laws. As if on cue, lawyer Gloria Allred has called for the criminal prosecution of Rush Limbaugh for calling law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and “prostitute.” I previously wrote that I believe Limbaugh’s comments were protected speech under the first amendment and constitute opinion for the purposes of any libel action. Such a prosecution would threaten core free speech principles and the law cited by Allred would appear not only inimical to free speech but overtly sexist.
In her press conference, Allred proclaimed “Mr. Limbaugh targeted his attack on a young law student who was simply exercised her free speech and her right to testify before congress on a very important issue to millions of American women and he vilified her. He defamed her and engaged in unwarranted, tasteless and exceptionally damaging attacks on her. He needs to face the consequences of his conduct in every way that is meaningful.” Thus, Allred insists, Limbaugh must be prosecuted to protect the free speech rights of Fluke. For most civil libertarians, that is rather counterintuitive.
In her letter to Palm Beach County State Attorney Michael McAuliffe, Allred speaks on behalf of the Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund. On her website, Allred identifies herself as the “founder and president” of the organization. Allred wants an investigation under Section 836.04 of the Florida Statutes which allows for the criminal prosecution of anyone who “speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity.” While based on defamation, the law allows for a criminal charge of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
What is curious about Allred’s embracing of this law is that it is overtly sexist. The law suggests that a woman who is viewed as unchaste is so harmed that she constitutes a crime victim. Chastity is defined by Webster’s as “(a) : abstention from unlawful sexual intercourse; (b) : abstention from all sexual intercourse.” The law is based on the out-dated notion that a woman who has sex before marriage is damaged and subject to social stigma. To put it more colloquially, such a woman was viewed as a “slut or prostitute.” That is precisely the outrageous view voiced by Limbaugh in relation to Fluke and led to a worldwide condemnation. Now, Allred wants him prosecuted under a law that assumes that is based on the same assumption. The law was not designed to prevent women from being called sluts. Laws like Florida’s code provision were designed on the belief that a woman who is unchaste is a slut — and that “good” women should never be accused of sex before marriage. So Allred wants Limbaugh prosecuted for saying Fluke is a slut based on the law that effectively treats unchaste women as sluts. It does not protect men because an unchaste man was viewed under these dated laws as just a normal man. A man was not viewed as harmed or demeaned by being sexually active. Only a woman was harmed by the suggestion of sexual activities. Not also the law only protects women who are “falsely” accused of being unchaste. Thus if a woman has been sexually active before married, she would presumably not be protected under the law.
I have previously written against these archaic laws, which were passed with anti-fornication and anti-adultery laws. Even when anti-adultery laws did not limit themselves to women, it was women who were often targeted.
Using sexist laws to fight sexism is never a good idea. In this case, the prosecution suggested by Allred would not only reaffirm the very sexism at the core of Limbaugh’s comments but add an attack on free speech to magnify the harm.
Source: Politico
Woosty, You must be a very very good empowering therapist.
Swarthmore mom1, March 12, 2012 at 11:58 am
—————————————————————–
Was calling Sandra Fluke a ‘slut’ and a ‘prostitute’ really political speech? Granted I do believe that the motivation was political but those epiteths are more personal in thier derogatory aim. When the halloween ‘Mohammed’ zombie went through the streets in a parade…he wasn’t calling people that believed in Mohammed ‘whores’ or ‘idiots’ or the like…and yet even he was slapped down by a ‘judge’…the inconsistencies in the application of our laws are becoming manifestly impossible to decipher for those of us who would not care to undermine the law….and yet the law turns on us for less……
[oh, I just thoght of a new word…derogatawdry…. !
! I am so pleased with it…. 🙂
Ms. Allred is quite frankly a self-serving idiot. If she actually believes in the cause of equality and fair treatment for women, as I do, then she has taken a winning cause and given its opponents the ammunition to defeat it. Prosecution of Limbaugh would not only make him an undeserving martyr, it would shift the focus to being simply about the First Amendment. In the resultant furor, the heinousness of his remarks would fall by the wayside.
Justice Holmes1, March 12, 2012 at 10:51 am
Here is the problem. Whether we want to believe it or not women who are accused of being “unchaste” are treated differently than men.
——————————–
Correct. Because ‘chastity’ is historically a social detriment to women and not to men. So a man that accuses a woman of any kind of ‘unchaste’ behaviour is actually calling up a social stigma to use as a weapon. It is not meaningfully different than men who beat thier wives, it is an act of control and abuse and designed to cause harm.
And that ‘silly little sexist law’ came about to protect women from that lowest form of social male animal…the one who uses many manner of attacks in relation to women, in effort to control or oppress ….a sorry man indeed!
Share Share Share on facebook Share on linkedin Share on twitter « Previous Politics | Next Politics » Email Email Print Print
How Four of Rush Limbaugh’s Critics Lost the Moral High Ground
By Conor Friedersdorf
Mar 12 2012, 8:30 AM ET 21
The talk radio host deserves criticism. But calls for him to be ordered off the air and prosecuted for insulting Sandra Fluke go too f
For years, I’ve warned conservatives about the bigoted rhetoric and dubious analysis that Rush Limbaugh offers on his radio program. There is no bigger critic of the man than me. I am nevertheless appalled by the prominent liberals who want the state to use its coercive power to silence him. Writing at CNN.com, Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem actually compare the talk radio host to Josef Goebbels before arguing that if Clear Channel won’t drop him the FCC should throw him off the air because his broadcasts aren’t in the public interest. In a separate effort, celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred has sent the Palm Beach County state attorney a letter urging that office to prosecute Limbaugh under an antiquated law that treats as a misdemeanor speaking about a woman and “falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity.”
Neither effort is likely to succeed. And thank goodness. The precedents these women would set are orders of magnitude more damaging than any offensive remark that Limbaugh has uttered. The U.S. has been well served by legal and social norms that stop the government from targeting, punishing or censoring political speech based on the perceived offensiveness of its content. Weakening that norm would result in attempts by the left and right to use speech codes as a cudgel against opponents. And as David Bernstein long ago observed in a different context:
There’s a great irony in current First Amendment scholarship in that it tends to be people on the radical left, radical feminists and so-called critical race theorists, who are most in favor of granting government power to censor ideas that they disapprove of. And they seem to be under the impression that somehow you’re going to allow the government to regulate hate speech… but somehow it’s not going to impinge on them.
But once you start making exceptions to the First Amendment it’s a very steep slippery slope and ultimately the restrictions won’t be limited to hate speech, just generally unpopular speech. The irony is that the views of these radical left-wing professors, whether ultimately you think they’re right or wrong, are clearly very unpopular. So it seems shortsighted that people who are among the most likely to eventually be censored will be those who are calling for weakening the traditional rule that the government cannot censor speech based on dislike of its viewpoint.
It is, finally, immoral to urge the state to silence or even arrest someone because their words are offensive, an ultimately subjective standard that everyone arguably transgresses against on occasion.
The behavior of Allred, Steinem, Fonda, and Morgan in this case reminds me of what Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain were doing during the uproar over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque: shortsightedly urging government to intervene, on flimsy pretenses, where it doesn’t belong. Private citizens are perfectly capable of registering their objections without government — and have no right to demand assistance from government in stopping what merely offends them.
Image credit: Reuters
W=^..^,
A criminal prosecution would subject Fluke to the same kinds of pressure a civil prosecution would. However, a criminal prosecution would likely end up with Rush getting a plea deal amounting to a slap on the wrist. A civil prosecution, even though just as stressful to Fluke, might end up paying for her education and hitting Rush in the only place he can feel pain through the haze of Oxy and Viagra – his pocketbook. Just something to consider.
I don’t think it would be worthwhile to try to charge Rush under this antiquated law. I understand your frustration Woosty, but this kind of law won’t help your situation in Florida.
—————————————————–
I was responding, in part, to the statement that was made to take these types of laws off the books altogether…I don’t think (Florida) is going to benefit from that. I would like to see Mr. Limburger held to account for his biased, ignorant. inflammatory attacks and ignoble statements but not at the expense of someone like Sandra Fluke. It would take a mighty lawyer to put her through that gauntlet and not disrupt her current course, which is the greater good indeed.
“Fighting Sexism With Sexism? Allred Calls For Limbaugh To Be Criminally Charged For His Attack On Fluke In The Name Of Free Speech”
I wonder how Gloria feels about our destroying a university system that had more women than Princeton? Really:
(Why The Right …). Sometimes we don’t realize how utterly foolish and hypocritical we appear to the world.
No criminal charges for destroying that?
Allred could be called a ‘prostitute’ – attention her payment – I am not calling her that just saying…
She truly is a disgrace.
I guess we have to consider the source of this. Gloria Allred is looking for clients and attention. I don’t think it would be worthwhile to try to charge Rush under this antiquated law. I understand your frustration Woosty, but this kind of law won’t help your situation in Florida. Voting people into office who believe the Bible belongs in church and civil law should separate itself from religion is your answer.
The way you describe the law, it sounds as though Fluke’s past sexual activity might form the basis for a defense by Limbaugh.
Just what every woman needs: a friend like Allred to get her involved in a case where the defense attorney gets to depose her on her sex life.
Sometimes it is so hard to choose: Limbaugh with his sex tapes or Allred with the depositions and testimony from her court case.
Hmmmm????
Equal protection….. It doth violate…..but unfortunately these types of prosecutions have been upheld….
……wootsy this is for you…….OK…..
As I understand the concept of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, one is allowed to say almost anything about a “public” person — such as a politician or a celebrity — but one is not allowed to accuse a private person (not a celebrity or holder of public office) of committing illegal acts, which is what a “prostitute” does.
Here is the problem. Whether we want to believe it or not women who are accused of being “unchaste” are treated differently than men. The culture has not changed. In fact, it would appear from the current politic rhetoric from the Republican candidates that many would like to see women relegated to the shadows and punished for being women. We need to work harder to make it socially unacceptable for some one like Rush to attack someone like Ms. Fluke in this manner. Having said that the criminal prosecution being suggested by Ms. Allred would be eve if successful would be a phyric victory for Ms. Fluke and a bonanza for Rush not to mention the damage done to the First Amendment. A civil suit and an appeal to sponsors are two very useful responses.
Rush’s language and the response of the Republican party and I would like to say the Catholic Church to his tirade provide clear evidence that the claim the make to Christian values is both hollow and perfidious. Hopefully a robust debate regarding the attack on women and their right to autonomy and a vocal and effective voice at the table of government will turn the tide on misogyny. I hope women are watching.
Allred wants an investigation under Section 836.04 of the Florida Statutes which allows for the criminal prosecution of anyone who “speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity.” The law allows for a criminal charge of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
—————————————————————————————————–
you would have to live in Florida and be a woman to understand why this law is necessary.
I am both and while I most certainly am against ‘sexist’ laws….I also understand that one reason we have any laws at all is because human behaviours elicit the need for them.
Coming to Florida was like stepping into a social time machine…and the sexist vision is, at least for the moment,king .
By all means, change the law, AFTER it is no longer necessary…meanwhile, as it remains necessary…ENFORCE IT….because not to do so will be tantamount to saying that people can say anything about anyone for any reason whatsoever…..and we do NOT have equal access to the courts (so wise up and make that a crime too why don’t you you lousy $$$ whores….)
😉
Bette Noire:
From Wikipedia:
Sandra Fluke is a practicing Protestant who graduated from Cornell University in 2003 and spent five years working for Sanctuary for Families, a New York-based nonprofit aiding victims of domestic violence, where she launched the agency’s pilot program Evaluation Initiative. She co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. Fluke was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President’s Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence. While at Georgetown University Law Center, she worked on issues that involved domestic violence and human trafficking.
Allred is a disgrace. And all these kinds of laws need to be systematically scrubbed from the books in all the states. They are anachronisms, to put it lightly.
Of course the legal code in all states (and federal) are so immense and convoluted that nobody really knows what all is in there, until they go looking for something like this to serve their own agenda.
see: shark, jumped
As I said before, that Limbaugh considers Fluke a “slut” is opinion, but “prostitute” is a statement of fact, and defamatory. A criminal charge is a mistake for the reasons you cite, but Ms. Fluke should certainly sue for defamation.
Unless she IS a paid sex worker, that is, in which case Mr. Limbaugh has truth as a defense.
If Gloria isn’t careful, she may be seen as an attention grabber.