Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard

[EmptyTimCup]

ok this is going to be a HOT Debate

Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard

ALAMOGORDO, N.M. (AP) — A New Mexico man's decision to lash out with a billboard ad saying his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes has touched off a legal debate over free speech and privacy rights.

The sign on Alamogordo's main thoroughfare shows 35-year-old Greg Fultz holding the outline of an infant. The text reads, "This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!"

Fultz's ex-girlfriend has taken him to court for harassment and violation of privacy. A domestic court official has recommended the billboard be removed.

But Fultz's attorney argues the order violates his client's free speech rights.

"As distasteful and offensive as the sign may be to some, for over 200 years in this country the First Amendment protects distasteful and offensive speech," Todd Holmes said.

The woman's friends say she had a miscarriage, not an abortion, according to a report in the Albuquerque Journal.

Holmes disputes that, saying his case is based on the accuracy of his client's statement.

"My argument is: What Fultz said is the truth," Holmes said.

 

[Merlin99]

ok this is going to be a HOT Debate

Modern tort law includes four categories of invasion of privacy:
Intrusion of solitude: physical or electronic intrusion into one's private quarters.
Public disclosure of private facts: the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable
False light: the publication of facts which place a person in a false light, even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory.
Appropriation: the unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness to obtain some benefits.

Public disclosure of private facts arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. Disclosure of private facts includes publishing or widespread dissemination of little-known, private facts that are non-newsworthy, not part of public records, public proceedings, not of public interest, and would be offensive to a reasonable person if made public.
Privacy laws of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From this it looks like if there is anything identifiable he's guilty.

 

[awpitt]

Whether or not she got an abortion seems to be in dispute which means the bilboard add could be a lie.

 

[EmptyTimCup]

From this it looks like if there is anything identifiable he's guilty.

I do not see her mentioned by name

 

[Merlin99]

I do not see her mentioned by name

Tilted pointed this out to me

Created for N.A.N.I. - National Association of Needed Information

at the bottom of the sign.

 

[puggymom]

I did not click the link (too lazy, I admit) but from what was posted it sounds like free speech. Kind reminds me of those Westboro nuts.

 

[This_person]

From this it looks like if there is anything identifiable he's guilty.

Isn't the child as much his as hers? Certainly, if there would have been a child support battle, the law would say he was responsible to provide for the child. So, the "private facts" would be as much his as hers.

Plus, if she got the abortion, there's clearly no moral issue for her to have done so (in her mind). So, no reasonable person could come to the conclusion that she would find it defamatory to have gotten an abortion.

To me, the only real question of of guilt is whether she got an abortion, or had a miscarriage.

 

[BOP]

I did not click the link (too lazy, I admit) but from what was posted it sounds like free speech. Kind reminds me of those Westboro nuts.

So you'd be okay if somebody posted your real name and address on the internet?

Remember, it's free speech. You're not a politician (are you?) so it's not a case of free speech for me, but not for thee.

 

[BOP]

Isn't the child as much his as hers? Certainly, if there would have been a child support battle, the law would say he was responsible to provide for the child. So, the "private facts" would be as much his as hers.

Plus, if she got the abortion, there's clearly no moral issue for her to have done so (in her mind). So, no reasonable person could come to the conclusion that she would find it defamatory to have gotten an abortion.

To me, the only real question of of guilt is whether she got an abortion, or had a miscarriage.

What do you think about somebody posting the names, addresses, and other personal information of the members of SEAL Team 6? Free speech, or privacy issue?

 

[This_person]

What do you think about somebody posting the names, addresses, and other personal information of the members of SEAL Team 6? Free speech, or privacy issue?

National Security issue. Same reason we don't post nuclear launch codes, or submarine crush depths.

 

[BOP]

National Security issue. Same reason we don't post nuclear launch codes, or submarine crush depths.

Pretend it's not, just for the sake of argument.

 

[thatguy]

Isn't the child as much his as hers? Certainly, if there would have been a child support battle, the law would say he was responsible to provide for the child. So, the "private facts" would be as much his as hers.

Plus, if she got the abortion, there's clearly no moral issue for her to have done so (in her mind). So, no reasonable person could come to the conclusion that she would find it defamatory to have gotten an abortion.

To me, the only real question of of guilt is whether she got an abortion, or had a miscarriage.

how would he know if it was his? they apparently had broken up early in the pregnancy, this could have easily been someone elses child, only she would know.
Last time i checked, even an abortion was considered a medical procedure, that certainly falls within the realm or personal privacy.
and finally, the guy is a total tool who admits that he doesn;t know if she had an abortion or not:

First, Fultz admits he isn't sure whether Lawrence had an abortion. When their six-month relationship ended, Lawrence lost the baby but would not tell Fultz what happened. She maintains she had a miscarriage. He says his billboard wasn't aimed at Lawrence but to spread awareness for fathers' rights.

Next, supporters of Fultz claimed the billboard was not harassment because he doesn't mention Lawrence by name. There are several issues with that. Alamogordo is not a large town; its population is 35,000. In a smaller town, people know each other. Fultz also did post his ex-girlfriend's name on the billboard, albeit in a subliminal way. The billboard proclaims three endorsements:

"Created for: N.A.N.I. -- National Association for Needful Information." This organization is of Fultz's creation and is an obvious reference to his girlfriend. "Nani" is not a common name. Fultz has since morphed the endorsement to read C.A.N.I. (Coalition About Needful Information).

so he is just being a bitter a-hole who cant get over a girl, like i said, a total tool.

 

[unixpirate]

ok this is going to be a HOT Debate

That's an hour East of me.

 

[Merlin99]

Isn't the child as much his as hers?
Legally no Certainly, if there would have been a child support battle, the law would say he was responsible to provide for the child. So, the "private facts" would be as much his as hers. That's making an assumption on future events.

Plus, if she got the abortion, there's clearly no moral issue for her to have done so (in her mind). So, no reasonable person could come to the conclusion that she would find it defamatory to have gotten an abortion.
That would depend on the judge, if he's an anti-abortion proponent and he's offended (we're supposing he's a "reasonable person") then she wins on the facts.
To me, the only real question of of guilt is whether she got an abortion, or had a miscarriage. I think the other questions have more merit

...

 

[philibusters]

I hope a court doesn't find against this guy.

Don't know the case law on public disclosure of private facts in New Mexico, but even if he violated that doctrine there is a strong First Amendment argument that he his protected speech. In essence that billboard is moral/social/political commentary.

 

[libertytyranny]

Isn't the child as much his as hers? Certainly, if there would have been a child support battle, the law would say he was responsible to provide for the child. So, the "private facts" would be as much his as hers.

Plus, if she got the abortion, there's clearly no moral issue for her to have done so (in her mind). So, no reasonable person could come to the conclusion that she would find it defamatory to have gotten an abortion.

To me, the only real question of of guilt is whether she got an abortion, or had a miscarriage.

so lets say your gf gave you herpes. It would be ok to post it in a billboard because it is both of your problem?

It is totally irrelevant whether she miscarried or had an abortion, neither are anyones ####ing business. If I were her id get me a billboard that said "it wasn't his because he couldn't keep it up" and place an outline of a limp dick.

 

[puggymom]

So you'd be okay if somebody posted your real name and address on the internet?

Remember, it's free speech. You're not a politician (are you?) so it's not a case of free speech for me, but not for thee.

Did he post her name? Like I said before I only read the blurb that was posted.

 

[puggymom]

so lets say your gf gave you herpes. It would be ok to post it in a billboard because it is both of your problem?

It is totally irrelevant whether she miscarried or had an abortion, neither are anyones ####ing business. If I were her id get me a billboard that said "it wasn't his because he couldn't keep it up" and place an outline of a limp dick.

 

[This_person]

Pretend it's not, just for the sake of argument.

Well, if it wasn't, then the premise of the question would be invalid, wouldn't it?

If they weren't seal team six, if they were just a bunch of people who all work together, but work for the government, well, their names are already public record. So, what would be the argument against it?

 

[This_person]

...

It makes no prediction of the future. It works upon established laws (who's responsible in a child support case?)


There's no privacy issue, because no one was named.

Thus, there are no other questions to have more merit.