The current Rush Limbaugh controversy revolves around his preposterous fabric of lies, concocted in the first place to justify calculatedly false and knowingly malicious ravings about Susan Fluke: that Fluke told Congress that she has so much sex that she can't afford the contraception she needs and therefore wants taxpayers to pay for it.
The underlying lie, though variously comment upon widely, still seems almost lost in the glare of Limbaugh's inexcusable and disgusting smears of Susan Fluke's reputation and honor, uttered with carefully crafted vulgarity and carried out in premeditated retaliation for Ms. Fluke's honest, truthful and relevant testimony to members of Congress. It's worth noting that she enjoys her right to speak to Congress under the 1st Amendment at least as much as Rush enjoys protection of whatever it is he does on his radio show.
I knew the premise of Limbaugh's schtick, but I discovered that actually listening to Limbaugh inflect the words improved my appreciation of what a completely fact-free universe this dangerous propagandist actually creates for his ovine audience.
As a general and pretty inflexible rule, I won't listen to Limbaugh because I fear sudden death by stroke. As a plus I lived through the seven minute, seven second experience wherein Limbaugh used three daily segments to spin his underlying, maliciously false premise about Ms. Fluke's imaginary sex life and personal needs, as an excuse to repeat the word sex so often that I lacked the patience to count that high.
I had been reading Limbaugh's quotes in the various posts reacting to this story, although I can now see that I didn't really get before how prominent a position this entirely fictional proposition occupied in Rush's obviously premeditated attack on an innocent Georgetown coed. I had seen and agreed with the observations that the actual testimony was nothing like and didn't even involve the same subjects as Limbaugh's fictional premise for his tirade against Ms. Fluke. It fully came home to me, however, when I broke my rule and listened to the YouTube on the front page tonight. Here is a link to that diary and a link to the Youtube.
Defamation is still the law in America and Limbaugh has committed an egregious, intentional tort. The only problem is that, a generation ago, in a very famous case called New York Times vs. Sullivan, the Supreme Court let a cat out of the bag that has played with the law of defamation, in connection with public figures, for the lifetimes of most people who still practice law in America. In the wake of Sullivan's Supreme Court progeny, Limbaugh's remarks are per se defamatory, which entitles Fluke to bring suit, but under the Sullivan line, Limbaugh will certainly assert Constitutional defenses. It is the kind of case where she may be entitled to a nominal judgement even if she cannot show money damage.
Limbaugh's problem is that even the Constitution allows defamation suits for knowingly false and malicious statements. Limbaugh's remarks cross so far over that line as to be virtually indefensible. Like most GOP positions (remember Prop 8?) it won't stand up in court.
Susan Fluke should sue Rush Limbaugh, Excellence in Broadcasting, the Premier Radio Network and Clear Channel Communications. Ideally, she could try to drag Bain Capital in, too. That would be a laugh riot for astute legal observers and, given the lamentable quality of legal reporting in America, endless entertainment for those with a taste for irony.
But Ms. Fluke goes to Georgetown law school. I guarantee you that she knows better than I do what her rights are. I would like to a be a fly on the wall at her law school study group as they chew over the issues. And I would really like to follow the discovery in Fluke v. Limbaugh, wouldn't you?