The conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, has threatened to sue the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for allegedly taking his words out of context. Some people may think the shock jock can dish it but cannot take it and that is what I thought until I read what the DCCC said.
The DCCC took Mr. Limbaugh’s words out of context and in a September fundraising email after Limbaugh made fun of Ohio State’s new mandatory sexual consent guidelines. They said “Let’s be clear: Rush Limbaugh is advocating for the tolerance of rape.” They did not just stop there, they started a campaign using the supposed quotes from Limbaugh to try to get his advertisers to yank their support of his program.This is what Rush Limbaugh actually said (NOTE: he was reading the Ohio State consent guidelines at the time):
Seduction used to be an art… the absence of no does not mean yes. It must be asked every step of the way. It cannot be implied or assumed even in the context of a relationship, and the absence of no does not mean yes.
Do you think the 2nd Amendment will be destroyed by the Biden Administration?(2)
He continued to read and realized that under the progressives’ guidelines:
At this point he was getting upset about a progressive culture that would say a thirteen year old could give consent for sex. He kept reading:So long as the girl’s thirteen she can give consent for sex provided it’s creative and enthusiastic.
Consent must be freely given, can be withdrawn at any time, and the absence of no does not mean yes…
He then asked:
How many guys, in your experience with women, have learned that no means yes if you know how to spot it?
I am not sure how you get Rush Limbaugh advocating for the tolerance of rape out of that? His comments to the guidelines were sarcastic and the DCCC took them out of context clearly just to attack him and smear his name.
Rush Limbaugh’s team is not sitting down and taking it. They had the following to say:The DCCC may believe it to be immune from liability by quoting words, taken out of context. This is untrue
They continue to point out previous court cases involving public figures where the court found misrepresentation or taking quotes out of context have been considered defamation.
The DCCC better watch out because they are about to be served.