A Complete Defense

As the Volokh Conspiracy points out:

"Gloria Allred, writing on the letterhead of the Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund has asked the West Palm Beach County Attorney to prosecute Rush Limbaugh for violating Fla. Stat. § 836.04:

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 …."

Now, Volokh is interested in analyzing the law, and I'll leave him to it.
You can see from his analysis why Allred is full of it.

I want to point out something entirely different to Volokhs' analysis, yet closely related to it.

Gloria Allred's attack is an essentially Muslim attack.

According to The Reliance of the Traveller, a fully approved manual of Sunni Sharia jurisprudence, slander (ghiba) has a very special definition - "slander" is saying something about someone that s/he wouldn't like to have said. (r2.2)

It doesn't matter if the statement is true. If the statement hurts the feelings of the one being discussed, it is slander and can be punished.

This is not an exaggeration, it is a quote.

The manual of sharia law even goes so far as to describe the six times when it is permissible to slander someone. It is still unlawful to slander them, mind you (r2.16), but it is acceptable to slander someone (you won't be punished for it) in the following circumstances:  
(1) testimony to a judge or one in authority in order to correct an injustice (r2.17), 
(2) to warn a wrongdoer that he must cease, lest he be punished (r2.18),
(3) asking for a legal opinion about someone from a legal authority (r2.19),
(4) to warn Muslims of an evil-doer (r2.20),
(5) to describe someone apparently unconcerned about the evil he is committing (r2.21),
(6) to identify someone who is known by a disparaging name (e.g., "the Cripple").

That's right. Islam considers court testimony to be slander, even if it is fully correct in every detail.

Now, Miss Fluke testified that she fulfilled all the qualifications of a slut: promiscuous, looking for money to compensate her for her sexual activity, etc.

So, anyone who actually identifies her as a slut has not committed slander according to US courts, but that person has committed slander by the Muslim definition of the word.

And Allred is apparently using the Muslim definition of slander here.

Many people have trouble figuring out why Muslims and liberals get along. This is one of the reasons. Multiculturalism and Muslim theology agree very strongly on this point:

You can't say anything that hurts another person's feelings. 

According to both parties, the truth is not only not a complete defense, the truth is no defense at all. Similarly, Muslim theology holds "It is permissible to lie if the goal is permissible, it is obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory." (r8.2).

Again, this matches precisely with the Alinsky mode of doing business. Liberals, secular humanists, multiculturalists, say whatever needs to be said in order to destroy their opposition. There is no regard for truth. Truth simply isn't relevant.

Because Islam holds that God can change, and that God is the greatest of deceivers, Islam is relativistic in how it handles most essential matters. A Muslim can lie, cheat, steal, even murder, as long as the target is a non-Muslim and as long as the goal is to advance the faith.

Lenin would have made a superb Muslim.
Conversely, Khameni would have made an excellent socialist.
And, of course, we have no way of demonstrating that Barack is not both.
He's got a complete defense.