• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rush Limbaugh Threatens To Sue Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

"In Price v. Stossel, the court held that, if a party accurately quotes ‘a statement actually made by a public figure, but presents the statement in a misleading context, thereby changing the viewer’s understanding of the speaker’s words,’ that constitutes defamation.”"

The DCC did not do that. His statement has the same meaning both with the context and when taken alone. It can reasonable be interpretted as condoning rape.
 
Full context. There was nothing ambiguous about it:


""Consent must be freely given, can be withdrawn at any time, and the absence of 'no' does not mean 'yes.' How many of you guys, in your own experience with women, have learned that 'no' means 'yes' if you know how to spot it? Let me tell you something. In this modern world, that is simply not tolerated. People aren't even gonna try to understand that one. I mean, it used to be said it was a cliche. It used to be part of the advice young boys were given. See, that's what we gotta change. We have got to reprogram the way we raise men. Why do you think permission every step of the way, clearly spelling out 'why'... are all of these not lawsuits just waiting to happen if even one of these steps is not taken?"

You claimed to provide full context, but left out a phrase that changes the whole nature of your quote.

“Seduction used to be an art. Now, of course, it’s ‘brutish’ and it’s ‘predatory’ and it’s bad," "'consent must be freely given, and can be withdrawn anytime, and the absence of ‘no’ does not mean ‘yes.’ ....”

If Rush's style of seduction is now considered brutish, predatory and bad, perhaps it is a bit too rapish.

Also note the "" (double quote mark)- he was quoting the law or a summary of it, when he said the parts about consent. That doesn't mean he supports those provisions, since he makes clear that he at least partially opposes those new rules. Again, its all too ambiguous and subjective to prove libel or slander.
 
Last edited:
I'm not the lawyer on the case...and I'm not going to invest time and energy to read every word Rush said on the issue.

That is my free, 1 minute take on the issue. I'm not that invested in Rush's legal problems.

Then quit spending your time arguing about something that you don't want to research and admit you just think Rush deserves anything he gets and has no rights just because you think he sucks.
 
I'm not the lawyer on the case...and I'm not going to invest time and energy to read every word Rush said on the issue.

That is my free, 1 minute take on the issue. I'm not that invested in Rush's legal problems.



Then your position is one of ignorance. No one asked you to read every word, and the paragraph was provided for you, yet you still close your eyes and ears to your prejudicial views.
 
You claimed to provide full context, but left out a phrase that changes the whole nature of your quote.

“Seduction used to be an art. Now, of course, it’s ‘brutish’ and it’s ‘predatory’ and it’s bad," "'consent must be freely given, and can be withdrawn anytime, and the absence of ‘no’ does not mean ‘yes.’ ....”

If Rush's style of seduction is now considered brutish, predatory and bad, perhaps it is a bit too rapish.

Also note the "" (double quote mark)- he was quoting the law or a summary of it, when he said the parts about consent. That doesn't mean he supports those provisions, since he makes clear that he at least partially opposes those new rules. Again, its all too ambiguous and subjective to prove libel or slander.



Seduction =/= rape or "pro rape".
 
Rush's use of the phrase "no means yes" probably puts this soundly in the Gray Area.

But I'm not a lawyer.

and the absence of 'no' does not mean 'yes.'
Is this the no means yes that you're talking about?
 
Back
Top Bottom