Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Free Speech, Society

Fighting Sexism With Sexism? Allred Calls For Limbaugh To Be Criminally Charged For His Attack On Fluke In The Name Of Free Speech

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

72 thoughts on “Fighting Sexism With Sexism? Allred Calls For Limbaugh To Be Criminally Charged For His Attack On Fluke In The Name Of Free Speech”

  1. Tootie, “FEDERAL government (We the People)”

    the FEDERAL government (representatives of ‘We the People’, after being duly elected and acting FOR the People…).

    And I would suggest, if we are gonna go along with that analogy….no, I don’t see how I can go along with that analogy…..because when you look closely….We the People do NOT agree with Mr. Limbaughs language (so the Gov is not truly representing the people) so either the analogy is a falsehood or Mr.Limbaugh is agross-ly misteeken or our Governments purpose has devolved into a self-serving cess-pool.

  2. Frankly wrote:

    at no time did she ever suggest the government pay for ANYTHING. What she was testifying for was to not allow PRIVATE insurance deny contraceptive coverage.

    ____________________________________________________________

    If the government will force us to buy insurance (at gunpoint: i.e. by law) and force the private companies to collect the money (at gunpoint: i.e. by law) then it is the STATE that is causing the exchange of money and the state that is forcing the people to fund for the contraception. No one BUT the state is forcing people into the health care system, then forcing them to pay for things they don’t want to pay for. Premiums go into one pool to spread the cost. There is no way to isolate the funds.

    If you want to make it all about women who need the contraception (pills) for hormone problems, that is a different matter. If the case can be proven that there is a legitimate need for the pills then there is no moral problem with providing contraception medicine. But it would be immoral to force others to provide coverage merely for avoiding unwanted pregnancy.

    Of course, federal government health care/insurance/fascism is immoral. And unconstitutional as well.

    So in my world, we wouldn’t be discussing this.

  3. Bigfatmike writes

    Somebody seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the relation of the pimp to the prostitute.

    It is the pimp who gets the money from the prostitute.
    _________________________________________________

    I cannot read Rush’s mind. I’m merely relaying the information that in the context of his statements (no matter how badly or how well he understands prostitution and pimps) he suggests he himself will be the pimp (as We The People?) if she is the prostitute.

    Now I have some idea of how the prostitution thing runs. I get this only from television. The pimp ‘protects” the females, however savagely it is done. they have territories, run schedules, scout out locations, look for johns, and so forth. And since the woman cannot be assured of getting the money for their “services” (mainly because she is physically more weak their her customers) the system naturally developed a need for an overseer (a pimp, or a madam, etc.)

    So there is some benefit the pimp provides, no matter how unseemly it is, and yes, he takes a cut for it. In the bad analogy Rush attempted to make, the FEDERAL government (We the People) provides what pimps and madams provide: some level of protection.

    Which is what contraception is all about. At least that is what leftists tell us.

  6. Speaking of the Florida law, etc.
    Jon Stewart said that Florida decides the election of the Pres. And it is composed of retired Jews and young Christians. No comment, just quoting for Woosty’s sake.

  7. Gene H.
    You know I thought WordPress was so smart that it was stamping after the commenter’s zone. Wouldn’t that be fun. Kidding.

    First day of sunny 50 degree weather. Should have seen all sunning their faces, and the teenagers blooming.

  8. id707,

    You should have been getting EDT on the posts all along. WordPress operates off of local time as set by the blog owner for time stamping.

  10. Woosty’s still a Cat

    Nutsie is also missing the big lie in Rush’s statement – at no time did she ever suggest the government pay for ANYTHING. What she was testifying for was to not allow PRIVATE insurance deny contraceptive coverage. 60% of the people who take birth control pills do so for hormonal reasons other than pregnancy prevention (my wife did this for several year because of a medical issue she had even after menopause).

    It was Rush who made that leap & then demanded video of her sex life as payment for the alleged payments that were not requested.

  11. “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” (Woosty)

    TRUTH

  12. SwathmoreMom, I got an email this am asking me to sign a petition telling clear channel to take Limbaugh off the air. I am a big one on signing petitions but this one I could not support. Let his advertisers and diminishing listener base do it. Not the state, not the opposers, but the ones who supported him will make the most splash against his rhetoric if (when) they are the ones to force him out.

  13. Somebody seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the relation of the pimp to the prostitute.

    It is the pimp who gets the money from the prostitute.

    It is the trick or perhaps the date who gives the money to the prostitute.

    This suggest an unusual perhaps shocking image of Uncle Sam.

    Does anyone need any further evidence that Limbaugh doe not have a clue?

    BTW, Limbaugh also seems to have the misapprehension that the amount of birth control used by women is proportional to the amount of sex.

    Would someone please explain the difference between Viagra and the pill to Limbaugh?

    Just trying to help…

  14. Tootie1, March 12, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    I think we are missing a big point. in Rush’s comments. He also called everyone of us (taxpayers) a pimp to her prostitution if the government paid for the contraception.
    ——————————-
    I don’t know but for argument let’s say ok….but Mr. Limbaugh is a voice on the air…a ‘public figure’…….is there anything he CAN’T say? Does he EVER have to think before opening that putrid maw?

  17. I think we are missing a big point. in Rush’s comments. He also called everyone of us (taxpayers) a pimp to her prostitution if the government paid for the contraception.

    You can read the full text of his comments and discern that Rush was trying to make an illustration and not an exact recital of facts. The whole context of his comments (especially regarding prostitution) was a badly stated analogy wherein she/they who receive the contraceptives are the prostitutes and we/us who pay for them are the pimps.)

    Thus, if Rush was really calling her a prostitute, he was also calling himself and everyone who paid for the contraception pimps.

    I don’t believe he meant that literally, but figuratively.

  19. NBAL not being a lawyer
    If I assume a jury trial for the criminal case, shall we consider the last scenes with Limbaugh on the stand, making his appeal.
    He’d have half the jury hypnotized before retiring, if they don’t stand up and cheer his speech. At best a hung jury, and moral victory for him

    For her, concentrate on your thing. He’s gonna disappear (I hope).

  20. OFF TOPIC
    Check the NYTimes front page and get the comments on Afghanistan.
    !00% for leaving. Amazing. Scathing, well–bred criticism abounds.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/world/asia/obamas-plans-in-afghanistan-complicated-by-recent-events.html?_r=1#postcomment

    My comment there:
    Let’s have a reality check. We never should have gone there. Alex the great failed, the ussr failed, and now we are failing. The afghans have been fighting invaders since 1500 BC. All leverage is gone now. Get out before we are humiliated as in Vietnam. Let’em live and modernize at their own pace.

    Since the Afghan leadership is drug-trader dominated, and corrupt otherwise; then to whom are we going to leave the mess to in the name of democracy. Don’t be suckers.

    Chalk one more up to the MI complex. They will start another war soon, just bring our troops home and give’em civilian jobs, chasing citizens in the police corps at home.

    Panetta says to Congress he does not need their OK to start wars. So that shows one more instance when the Constitution is being ignored by Obama and Co. It’s not new.

Comments are closed.