If you haven't been underneath a rock for the past 2 weeks, you know that there has been a bit of a dust-up between a prominent conservative radioman (Rush Limbaugh), and a law student interested in reproductive rights (Sandra Fluke). This post is NOT about either of those people. What this post DOES concern is the inane request of a legal self-promoter (Gloria Allred), and her inability, or unwillingness to read.
I have no quarrel with Ms. Allred's initial statement. On the 5th of March, Ms. Allred took to youtube to issue Rush Limbaugh an "open letter." I agree with Ms. Allred that Mr. Limbaugh ought to have used different language in discussing Ms. Fluke, and her positions - with which Mr. Limbaugh adamantly disagrees.
The irony in Ms. Allred's statement is that she accuses Mr. Limbaugh, in apologizing, of only doing so because of his economic self-interest. Open letters, when they are issued, seek to place a disagreement into the public square that might have been handled privately. Why did Ms. Allred decide to post a Youtube video as opposed to contacting Mr. Limbaugh by phone, email, or letter? Was it so Ms. Allred could place her personage in the middle of a debate with which she lacks any close connection? Was she motivated by her economic self-interest? Only Ms. Allred can clear this up.
Gloria's quarrel with Rush, unfortunately, did not end with her "open letter." On the 8th day of March, Ms. Allred, on behalf of the "Women's Legal Rights Legal Defense And Education Fund", sent another letter - this time to the State's Attorney in West Palm Beach, Florida. In that letter, Ms. Allred seeks to persuade the State's Attorney to "investigate" Mr. Limbaugh in order to determine if he violated a Florida criminal statute. If Ms. Allred actually believes that Mr. Limbaugh has committed a criminal offense, I would encourage Ms. Allred to seek aid when attempting to interpret statutes, and their interaction with Federal Constitutional Law.
Allred Letter
Nothing that Mr. Limbaugh said, ..."falsely"..."imputed to (Ms. Fluke) a want of chastity." Mr. Limbaugh's statements were false, and malicious. They were not, however, an attempt to falsely impute a want of chastity to Ms. Fluke. Ms. Fluke's testimony before Congress was for the express purpose of declaring her "want of chastity." Further, the purpose of her testimony was to forward the notion that she ought to be able to continue engaging in behavior that would contribute to an ongoing want of chastity without having to pay for contraception. As I said before, this post does not seek to have any
substantive discussion on the underlying issue of contraception, and payment for it. This is about the inanity of Ms. Allred's second letter.
Even if Ms. Allred's understanding of the facts are correct, and different than my understanding, Ms. Allred should consider the doctrine of incorporation. Because of this doctrine, Mr. Limbaugh's speech is protected opinion. Since the case of Gitlow vs. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), similar political opinion has been protected even though the action might theoretically run afoul of State law.
I believe that Gloria Allred is an intelligent attorney. I believe that Gloria Allred knows what she's doing. And I don't believe that her second letter was sent with any real belief that a State's Attorney in Florida is going to prosecute Rush Limbaugh for exercising free speech rights with which Ms. Allred disagrees. So, I'll ask again, who's "economic self-interest" is this really about Gloria? I think we all know.
*Nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice. If you need a lawyer, hire one. I am not your lawyer.*
No comments:
Post a Comment