Originally Posted by RichieLion

That's funny, but I'm sure the Democrat Party is asking Ms. Allred to shut up already.

To use the law that the noxious Ms. Allred is proposing would mean having to prove that the subject in question is a virginal girl who's being maligned.

Do you think 30 year old law student/reproductive rights activist Ms. Fluke is up to that kind of scrutiny?

This is the law that Ms. Allred is citing:

836.04 Defamation.—Whoever speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. History.—s. 1, ch. 3460, 1883; RS 2419; GS 3260; RGS 5091; CGL 7193; s. 990, ch. 71-136.

To show cause for action the state would be in the unenviable position of having to show that Ms. Fluke had been chaste in order to show the falsehood. Chastity is a pretty hard standard to demonstrate when measuring the meaning of that word. The word has only one meaning, so it would be difficult to rule in any way but one, if in fact Ms. Fluke isn’t chaste.

This could have the bonus effect of showing the world in a very public manner that Limbaugh had been right all along if the court is forced to conclude that Ms. Fluke was, in fact, not chaste. Couple that with the difficulty in showing malice on Limbaugh’s part, and this could prove to be something great for Limbaugh and a nightmare for Ms. Fluke.

This wouldn’t be the first time Allred caused a client more harm than good.
But, all Ms. Allred want's is her moment in front of the cameras for her media splash.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to post this. I was waiting for the appropriate time.