Condemned as “Not a Real Person” By Rush Limbaugh, a Small Businesswoman Speaks Out

[kpete]

TUE FEB 14, 2012 AT 06:49 PM PST
Condemned as “Not a Real Person” By Rush Limbaugh, a Small Businesswoman Speaks Out
byJohnKWilsonFollow

Limbaugh's parade of error began this morning when the Obama Administration urged people to tweet messages about what a $40 payroll tax cut would mean to them. One reply was from a twitter account named Scarebaby: "$40 a month means I can pay my Internet bill and keep my tiny small business alive."

Limbaugh seized upon this statement as proof of a fraud:

it's BS. Nobody actually sent that. That's a White House-generated response. And do you know how I know?...ScareBaby cannot possibly have a small business and get this payroll tax cut. The self-employed don't get it. If you are self-employed, you know it. This doesn't even apply to you. There is no payroll tax cut for the self-employed.

I emailed the contact email for Scarebaby on her website. She responded and identified herself as Holly Hertzel:

Yes, I am a real person. I live in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. I own a number of shops on the internet, including one called Scarebaby Design (www.scarebaby.com). These shops are my only source of income. I am not, and never have been, a White House employee, an Obama employee, nor an employee of any organization that works for the Democratic Party.

I asked her if she had anything she wanted to say to Limbaugh. She responded,

I would appreciate a public apology and retraction from him, as his comments have not only caused me personal anguish (being called a fraud, a liar and worse, on Twitter), but may have been injurious to my business and livelihood. I understand that he's just an entertainer, but his followers who spread his falsehoods seem not to know the difference between entertainment and fact.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/14/1064895/-Condemned-as-Not-a-Real-Person-By-Rush-Limbaugh-a-Small-Businesswoman-Speaks-Out?via=siderec

[Phlem]

1. I work with her significant other.

Totally talked about this, this morning at work. Seeing it here is weird and cool. These are good people. They work for everything they've got. Rush.....

He's the face of the Republican party as far as I'm concerned.

-p

[nanabugg]

52. If her business suffers, I hope she can prove it was a result of Rush's lies.

This needs to go viral and Ed needs to talk about it on his show...can't expect CNN to do it.

[creeksneakers2]

2. Rush lied over and over

Rush said scarebaby was a fraud because self employed people don't pay SS taxes. But they do. Rush said the self employed wouldn't get a tax cut, but they do. Rush said the SS tax cut would deplete the SS trust fund, but its reimbursed by the general fund.

Rush is lying to his gullible followers because he wants every cent of any tax cut to go to the super wealthy.

[spanone]

4. i'm self employed, i have to pay it all.

[ProfessorGAC]

39. That's What I Was Going To Say

Self-employed people have to pay both halves. I'm right, aren't i?
GAC

[pnwmom]

46. Absolutely -- self employed pay both parts. n/t

[catrose]

49. Yes

So when Repugs call it an entitlement...you better believe I'm entitled! I paid the whole thing.

[newspeak]

30. limballs is not only an ignorant, greedy blowhard

but he does a lot of fabricating to his dittoheads. And being that his followers are the same type of compassionless bullies, they follow any tripe he spouts.

Just one semester of logic 101, would uncover limpball's MO. How he takes a small exaggerated incident, then conflates it to the whole. Or if the facts don't fit his ideology; how he either lies or skirts the facts.

The man is still on the air spewing, because his corporate masters and the wealthy find him a handy tool. And he is paid well to keep the plebes in line.

[Lost-in-FL]

35. My father was self-employed and HAD to pay for his SS. nt

[Indianademocrat91]

3. Sue his ass for libel..

Calling someone a fraud and liar can definitely be construed as negatively affecting her and her business. He knowingly broadcast that to make a point and he was not being funny or clever, which I think is why it's libel and not slander as it was broadcast. Screw that filthy pill popping waste of human excrement

[valerief]

5. You forgot to call him a pedophile, too! nt

[Phlem]

6. Did you forget your

Sarcasm smiley or are you serious?

-p

[ieoeja]

21. Limbaugh vacations in a region known for catering to foreign males who crave young boys.nt

[Phlem]

33. uggh

to much info..

my bad

-p

[Javaman]

38. he was also there to score more oxy. nt

[chervilant]

43. With

a ready supply of little blue pills in his luggage (mysteriously prescribed for someone else).

[valerief]

45. Totally serious. nt

[sabrina 1]

42. I agree, she should sue him.

He's the voice of the Republican party. And this is an example of what they do. Lie and cheat with impunity.

[kestrel91316]

7. Oh, c'mon. She a WOMAN. Of course she's not a real person.

Only men are.

[JNelson6563]

16. You are much mistaken.

Only white men are.

[tclambert]

17. Only white men who own property.

Slaves would count as property, by the way, if only big government would get out of the way of entrepreneurs' God given right to own slaves.

[Zalatix]

50. And THAT, folks, is how the GOP wants to take America BACK.

Way back.

[kestrel91316]

8. She needs to sue his ass to kingdom come for

broadcasting that!!

[stopwastingmymoney]

9. He has the facts wrong

I'm self employed, we DO get the payroll tax cut as a reduction in our self employment tax aka FICA

[WCGreen]

12. I'm an accountant and am glad you caught that...

I was going to post about that so I defer to you...

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. Getting the facts wrong is what he does. n/t

[tsuki]

22. He does not have his facts wrong.

He didn't like the facts, so he made up new ones. It is call the RW GOP Bubble, and he is chief Bubblebuttboy.

[newspeak]

31. facts?

he don't need no stinkin facts!!! It's limpballs.

[spooky3]

34. and here's a link to show you are right

http://www.examiner.com/human-resources-in-amarillo/payroll-tax-cuts-extended-through-end-of-2012

[Initech]

10. Rush? Apologize for a rude comment?

I'd love to see it happen but I'm guessing it probably wont.

[jsmirman]

11. K&R

glad she could get her response out there

[BumRushDaShow]

13. K&R

Knowing this gasbag will probably find some convoluted pea-brain way to walk it back, railing about how the "librul media" did a coordinated attack on him and other such nonsense.

[Bandit]

14. Self Employment Tax IS Social Security..

Limbaugh demonstrates his ignorance on a daily basis..

[Raine1967]

15. Did everyone see *this* DU thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002309970

Looks like this person is a DU member!

[tclambert]

18. Are you sure Rush Limbaugh is a real person?

He seems like such a caricature of a blowhard propagandist that he could just be an actor hired for the part. "Get me a fat, obnoxious guy who chomps on cigars for this part."

[Mimosa]

19. Limbaugh is a highly paid professional propagandist/LIAR.

He's lying more than ever it appears.

I never listen anymore. Haven't in years.

[myrna minx]

23. All of my best to you Holly. K&R

[yellowcanine]

24. Rush Limbaugh is not a real person but he plays one on the radio.

[raouldukelives]

25. K&R

Best of luck in your fight against evil.

[byronius]

26. Anything that helps my employees get by, helps me.

Rush is bad for America. Poisonous, rotten, cruel and undeservedly rich.

[oldtime dfl_er]

27. Thanks everyone!

I totally appreciate all the support I've gotten here, on facebook, twitter, and at Daily Kos.

I'm in the process of working up an open letter to Rush Limbaugh that I will post here when it's done.

In the meantime, I made the mistake of visiting some "conservative" forums that were posting about me today, and the level of vitriol is completely off the charts. What an indication of the intelligence, compassion and critical thinking of the dittoheads!!!!!!

Thank you, everybody!

Holly
(Scarebaby)

BTW - the name Scarebaby, despite what Rush would tell you, came out of my love for the movie "It's a Wonderful Life". If you google the script you will see that George Bailey calls his little brother a "scare-baby". That word always stuck in my head, and when I decided to start a business, I wanted a name that would be memorable, and just thisside of nonsensical (like google, yahoo, etc). Rush went to all kinds of convoluted twists to try to make it sound as though the name had something to do with abortion. What a pear shaped loser.

[oldtime dfl_er]

28. oh and thank you

for the hearts!

[barbtries]

29. Holly,

turns out i needed a t-shirt for 2012. won't it be sweet if it turns out that he did you a big favor?

[Great Caesars Ghost]

36. Question for Holly

Did you obtain an attorney? I hope you did. Show no mercy and win.

[Uncle Joe]

32. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[Javaman]

37. Slander suit?

is that possible against limpballs?

[ProfessorGAC]

40. DU Lawyers!

We probably need someone to clarify, but according the Business Law book i have in my office, someone has to know they were telling a lie.

All Limbaugh has to say is he honestly believed it was a fraud, and didn't know he was causing any harm. And, if one actually believes someone doesn't exist, you can't have malicious intent.

Now, defamation may be a whole different nut.
GAC

[CoffeeCat]

53. I remember the elements of libel...

The elements of libel are:

Publication
Identification
Defamation and
Falsity

I think she has ALL of these elements and could have a pretty successful libel case. Clearly
Limbaugh engaged in PUBLICATION when he said these disparaging things about Scarebaby
over the airwaves. IDENTIFICATION--could be proven if Scarebaby was identified and is
identified that way through her business. DEFAMATION is clearly met--as calling someone
a fraud and a liar meets the criteria. FALSITY--Oh boy, this is a slam dunk. What Rush
said was false.

The clincher here will be proving that by defaming "Scarebaby" she was harmed in measurable
ways--lost income, lost business, loss of reputation. I would advise Scarebaby to document
all of the negative tripe that is being said about her on the Internet. PRINT IT ALL OFF! Also,
if you are getting hate email through your business--PRINT OFF ALL OF THAT AS WELL!

Scarebaby is not a public figure. Public figures (in libel suits) must meet a higher legal
standard to win a libel suit. They must prove FAULT. They must prove that the person
KNEW the statements were false, but publicized them anyway. Scarebaby would not
have to meet this higher threshold (she only has to prove that the statements are false)
because she is NOT a public figure. Being employed or having a website alone does not
make someone a public figure.

Good luck. I'd find an attorney if I were you, just to explore your options. You never know, this
could impact your business in the future--so you may want to seek legal counsel now while
this incident (and the facts) are fresh in your mind.

[SemperEadem]

41. My dear, what he did is called "Slander"

and it's actionable in a court of law because you are not a public figure--you do not have to prove actual malice.

[unblock]

44. i don't think that's correct.

if you post something online in a public forum for all to see, that comment, at least, is public.

i'm pretty sure any jerk like rush is free to criticize that comment and make anything up just about anything about the comment or the circumstances behind it.


nevermind that it might be quite a challenge to prove damages and tie them to something he specifically said.

it's also a tough argument to make as anyone in a position to damage scarebaby (e.g., by taking their business elsewhere) would obviously be in a position to know that it was indeed a real business, thousands of miles away from the white house and so they would have to know that rush's comments were obviously false.



that said, rush is certainly a public figure so i'm also free to call him a jerk and a jackass and i won't rule out dope fiend and pedophile.

[CoffeeCat]

54. Actually....scarebaby would only have to prove "falsity"

Scarebaby would only have to prove that the comments are false--and she would have
to demonstrate measurable losses (to business or to her reputation).

Only public figures who are libeled have to prove "fault". They must prove that the
offender knew the comments were lies and published them anyway. That's why
celebrities don't sue the National Enquirer, etc. It's pretty difficult to prove that
a reporter or another person knew the published info was lies and intentionally (and with
malice) published anyway.

A public figure is defined as someone who "thrusts themselves into the spotlight" and
Scarebaby does not meet this legal criteria.

She only has to prove that the statements are false. No problem there.

One of the necessary libel elements is "identification". You must be clearly identified
to win a successful libel suit. By lying about Scarebaby, she was identified--because
Scarebaby is connected back to her website and her business. In effect, Rush libeled
her (called her a liar, a fraud and a White House tool) as Scarebaby and defamed the
Scarebaby name/business.

Scarebaby must prove that she suffered a loss due to this--either in business, profit or
loss of reputation. As I mentioned in a previous post--she should be gathering up every
negative word typed about her on the net. Her printer should be smoking.

That's my opinion anyway. Others may have additional thoughts.

[unblock]

56. my concern is that in this respect i think she did thrust herself into the spotlight

by voluntarily posting online, in a context she knew could be bandied about politically.
moreover, she did this in a way that could be linked back to her business.

she's rather like "joe the plumber" in this respect. they both WERE ordinary, private people before they made a public, political statement.


again, not saying rush has any moral leg to stand on here, just saying that i think any legal action would be a major uphill battle.
nevermind that rush, inc., could easily bankrupt her by sheer weight of legal team.

[SemperEadem]

57. I was not talking about a public forum

I said that SHE is not a public figure and in that sense, she does not have to prove actual malice.


Go look it up. It's law 101: Public figure is a legal term applied in the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy. A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth[1] ). The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure.

This woman does not meet this definition. Limpfuck slandered her and she is entitled to recourse in a court of law.

[unblock]

58. i'm just saying it's a very uphill legal battle

she volunteered a statement that reached the attention of the nation, the white house, and limpballs. i'm not sure that doesn't make her a celebrity, albeit a minor one.

there are other challenges, too. for instance, we don't have the exact text of what was said, so it could easily be the case that no actual falsehood was told. "she's not a real person" would be a falsehood, but "i suspect she's not a real person" would not.

it's also very difficult to prove damages -- did she suffer a drop in business? was it actually just seasonal? without producing actual people who stopped patronizing her stores because of what rush said (and how do you find them?) this may be hard to prove -- you also have to show that the free notoriety didn't compensate for it.

and then it's hard to prove that the loss of business was related to the LIES that rush said, as opposed to anything else that rush said, or as opposed to independent conclusions -- people might not have liked her original statement, or agreed with rush on the truthful things he said, and ignored the lies.


EVEN IF she's not a celebrity for purposes of a legal challenge, and even though she would only have to demonstrate her case to a preponderance of the evidence, she's still got a tough battle.


she's better off working the fame and anti-rush angle to replace any lost customers and forgetting about a legal challenge, unless she actually goes out of business and has nothing better to do with her time and money.



once again, NO sympathies for what rush did here, and lots of sympathy for his victims. i'm just happen to be very aware of how
taxing and expensive the actual legal process is, especially against entities who can afford massive legal teams.

[SemperEadem]

59. that has not been established

which is her mistakenly assumed to be called a "public figure" when she is not. She was not a public figure until rush dragged her into the public sphere. She wasa private business owner who tweeted by invitation by the president to share her story re: the payroll tax cut and how it benefitted her. Aside from the fact, her private information was put out in the public sphere as a result of limpfuck's big mouth.

A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate people to public figure status.

One tweet to Obama's timeline does not equate "a fairly high threshold of public activity". lumpfuck decided that she needed to be dragged by her hair into the middle of the ring to be bludgeoned by his minions for daring to respond to an invite to share a story. And notice that he didn't pick a man; he picked a woman who he obviously feels he can intimidate through his reach not only on airwaves but through those select few who feel compelled to be his champion based upon what he says.

Typically, they must either be:

a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or
a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted.

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).[1]

In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false,[2] and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.[3] Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike (with) libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."

Any reasonable person would be offended if their private information was put into the public sphere where their life would be placed in jeopardy by someone who has decided that being a terrorist for rush, engaging in his unhinged jihads was his life's goal. Let's not forget how this all came about: Limbaugh's parade of error began this morning when the Obama Administration urged people to tweet messages about what a $40 payroll tax cut would mean to them. One reply was from a twitter account named Scarebaby: "$40 a month means I can pay my Internet bill and keep my tiny small business alive."

So, those who post here an other forums are now all public figures and can be throttled for the amusement of anyone who decides that they want to start a witch hunt about an opinion one holds and there is no recourse through the law for that? I patently disagree with and reject that premise. I don't think her fight will be hard at all: she doesn't have to prove actual malice, although it's there with bright red flags waving all around it. That would have made her case hard.

[unblock]

60. what about all the other challenges to building a successful case?

again, it's not clear to me what he said that actionably defaming and readily tied to actual damages.

questioning if a tweet came from a real person is actionable? really?
even if he phrased it as a fact that turns out to be false (or even if he knew it was false), does that really amount to slander?

and as far as i can tell, it was scarebaby who volunteered the private information, to prove she was a real person. they would easily argue that she could have left well enough alone and it was her voluntary disclosures, giving out her name, region, and her business, that caused any damages.


one example of the challenges real life legal disputes -- a company i worked for once sued an insurance company for breach of contract. the insurance company canceled a prepaid 5-year policy after 1 year and refused to return the remaining premium. legally, the question was did they have the right to cancel after it was prepaid or did they need to return the premium. as the contract was written, it seemed like an open-and-shut case that they couldn't cancel after it was prepaid (which was the whole reason for prepaying) but the outcome was that not only could they cancel but that they could KEEP the premiums. this makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever but it actually happened. so you see where i'm coming from when i hear about legal cases that sound easy....

[SemperEadem]

62. so because it's "challenging"

it should be dismissed. Ok....

[unblock]

63. who said dismissed?

i'm saying nothing definitive but others are acting as if this is an open and shut slam dunk victory.

all we have to go on is that rush said something about an online comment being from not a real person or from the white house or not having an actual small business or something. we don't have the exact words, and we don't have any indication that he dug into her business or her private life and revealed anything or identified her beyond what she herself put out there. we don't have demonstrable defamation. we don't have a clear connection between anything he said and any subsequent business lost.

by the way, it IS prefectly legal to call for a boycott of a business based on such things as public comments made by the owner. if i recognize my dry cleaner on the 6 o'clock news man on the street interview saying he's voting for rmoney, i'm perfectly free to distribute flyers in his heavily democratic neighborhood calling for a boycott of his business. and it wouldn't be a problem if i put in the flyer that he was an rnc tool.

i don't see that she's got a good case here at all. maybe there's more to it that i haven't seen yet, but i don't think any good lawyer would really care to go to battle against rush and his army of high-powered law firms based on the very thin evidence we've seen here.

if there is more to it, if the actual text of what rush said is indeed quite damning, then yeah, sure, have at it. i'd love to see rush pay for the crap he spews. but i'm just not seeing it here.

just seems to me a other think this is a 98% chance of beating rush and i think it's a 2% chance of beating rush.

[sarcasmo]

47. Kick!

[Bozita]

48. K&R

[steve2470]

51. k&r nt

[The Wizard]

55. Rash is not an entertainer

He's a bloated Nazi propagandist.

[Kingofalldems]

61. Chicken Hawks are too weak to apologize

[WCGreen]

64. As an accountant with payroll accounts I can tell you self-employed people do get the deduction...

Here is how it works
Self-Employed people have to pay Social Security on the Form SE...

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sse.pdf

Here is a link to the Form.

Look at line 5. In normal times, that line would be 15.3%, which is 7.65 x 2.

In the form for 2011, the latest tax year, that line is 13.3%

The 15.3% is a combination of 6.2% for the self-employed person’s contribution, 6.2% which is the company's matching, 1.45% for Medicare contribution from the employee and 1.45% for the match from the company.

The person who is Self-Employed is allowed to deduct the 7.65%, 6.2% plus 1.45% that the company contributes from his gross income.

Any year that the reduction in SS contribution from the stimulus is 13.3% which is 4.2% from the employee, 6.2% matching, The Medicare contributions remain the same