free speech vs. privacy rights
Jeanwah
Posts: 6,363
A jilted boyfriend's 'humiliating' anti-abortion billboard
A New Mexico man, Greg Fultz, has lashed out at his former girlfriend with a billboard showing him holding the outline of a baby, along with the words, "This would have been a picture of my 2-month old baby if the mother had decided to not KILL our child!" (See the sign below.) While abortion rights groups are livid, Fultz's ex, Nani Lawrence — who says she had a miscarriage, not an abortion — has taken Fultz to court for harassment and violation of privacy. When a domestic-violence court commissioner told Fultz to take down the $13,000 sign, he protested, saying the order violated his First Amendment rights. Not so, says Lawrence's lawyer: "Fultz's right to free speech ends where Nani Lawrence's right to privacy begins."
The reaction: Fultz has to be the biggest jerk on the planet, says Jessica Wakeman at The Frisky. And the most disgusting thing about his "humiliating" attack is that a mainstream anti-abortion group, New Mexico Right to Life, actually "endorsed the abortion billboard and let Fultz use their logo...." Fultz was trying to get across a legitimate message, says Angelia Phillips at Pat Dollard. In many cases of abortion, there are "wonderful loving fathers who would happily have raised [the babies]," but didn't have any say in the matter. The trouble is, says Danielle Sullivan at Babble, Fultz went way beyond expressing his views on men's rights. Truly "astounding": He doesn't even know whether what he said is true. Check out the billboard for yourself:
http://theweek.com/article/index/216067 ... -billboard
A New Mexico man, Greg Fultz, has lashed out at his former girlfriend with a billboard showing him holding the outline of a baby, along with the words, "This would have been a picture of my 2-month old baby if the mother had decided to not KILL our child!" (See the sign below.) While abortion rights groups are livid, Fultz's ex, Nani Lawrence — who says she had a miscarriage, not an abortion — has taken Fultz to court for harassment and violation of privacy. When a domestic-violence court commissioner told Fultz to take down the $13,000 sign, he protested, saying the order violated his First Amendment rights. Not so, says Lawrence's lawyer: "Fultz's right to free speech ends where Nani Lawrence's right to privacy begins."
The reaction: Fultz has to be the biggest jerk on the planet, says Jessica Wakeman at The Frisky. And the most disgusting thing about his "humiliating" attack is that a mainstream anti-abortion group, New Mexico Right to Life, actually "endorsed the abortion billboard and let Fultz use their logo...." Fultz was trying to get across a legitimate message, says Angelia Phillips at Pat Dollard. In many cases of abortion, there are "wonderful loving fathers who would happily have raised [the babies]," but didn't have any say in the matter. The trouble is, says Danielle Sullivan at Babble, Fultz went way beyond expressing his views on men's rights. Truly "astounding": He doesn't even know whether what he said is true. Check out the billboard for yourself:
http://theweek.com/article/index/216067 ... -billboard
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
i think they are both within their rights
we have a right to free speech
we also have a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy in our personal lives
i don't claim to know the legalities here
but from what i understand
this may fall under "libel"
Legally:
Libel = when something is said publicly or published publicly that is hurtful and/or harmful to someone, especially if, but not necessarily if, this is a false statement, then our right to free speech ends, more or less
Defamation— - also slander ~ transitory statements
Libel - written, broadcast, or otherwise published words
Both = 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. It is usually (but not necessarily) a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed
More Importantly ~ Morally
we SHOULD have free speech yes...most definitely
HOWEVER, we should all self-police and refrain from or at least limit statements that are hurtful to other people, either privately or publicly
At least that's how it should be in My Own Little World
AND now to the other issue..abortion even though the claim is that this was a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) rather than an evacuation...and the right to determine what happens within our own bodies. THIS is good...whether you believe in abortion or not...the right to have control over our own bodies is a positive thing. Anything less is heading down a dangerous road.
BUT I also understand the man's frustration over the fact that he has no control over the birth or non-birth of his own child....theoretically also his own flesh and blood. A woman cannot be forced to carry to term a fetus because the father desires it to be so.
I have no solution for that dilemma..only opinion.
jo
http://www.Etsy.com/Shop/SimpleEarthCreations
"How I choose to feel is how I am." ~ EV/MMc
"Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy, or they become legends." ~ One Stab ~
my question to the lawyer for the lady would be where does the right to privacy begin? where is a right to privacy defined?
The woman has a right to have an abortion, something I would always defend...but the "father" of the child also has a right to express how he feels about it. In the picture of the billboard I saw no names were ever used.
seems pretty easy to prove whether or not it was an abortion, medical records can be subpoenaed.
ultimately I think it is up to the woman to have the right to choose, but to say that a potential father needs to sit back and be quiet about it is rather strange. Especially when he didn't use her name...was it tasteless and certainly lacking in tact...yes...but it should only be taken down and court cases furthered if it truly was a miscarriage...tough discussion for sure...I can definitely see it both ways
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
yup
this should be a no-brainer ... she had a miscarriage not an abortion ... i would say the above even if she had an abortion but the fact that she didn't should make this a no-brainer ...
agreed !
Godfather.
it's harassment because by showing his picture ... it will not be hard for someone to find out who his girlfriend is ... and you know that there will be some hard core pro-lifers out there who will feel it in their right to issue death threats and do whatever it takes ... frig ... we even know his name ...
local gossip ? stuff travels like wild fire, anybody that know those two and see's his picture on the billboard with a comment about his girlfriend knows her name as well and that just spreads thru word of mouth.
the guy is a enflamed hemroid,needs his azz kicked.
Godfather.
Honestly, if you put up this same sign, with your picture, in a place where everyone knew you, don’t you think that people would know the ex-girlfriend? If not, don’t you think people would make assumptions and start naming girls, who would then have to defend themselves against those accusations, thus, violating their right to privacy, because they are being forced to address a public accusation.
No. It's not. It's pretty clear-cut.
Your ex-boyfriend doesn't have the right to buy a billboard saying "Sally had anal warts and you shouldn't date her" and this man has no right buying a billboard saying "my ex-girlfriend had an abortion."
I'm so sick of people thinking that "freedom of speech" means "I get to be the biggest asshole in the world and ruin anyone's life for kicks and there ain't a god damned thing you can do about it."
Something we can pretty much all agree on.
You learn a lot about people by how they treat other people in rough times, this guy proved he is an asshole... plus it looks like he has some form of a mullet.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
again I ask where does the right to privacy come from? where is it defined?
This isn't nearly as distasteful or harassing as what the WBC does, but they are free to do it with no repercussions...This isn't harassment, in my opinion, this is distasteful and it certainly speaks volumes about his character...She should put up a picture of herself talking about how her boyfriend struggled with Premature ejaculation with an endorsement by Extenze or something...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
When the mean girls bully and taunt and verbally attack other girls to the point of killing themselves, the girl's lawyers are now claiming that "calling her a stupid bleeding-cunt whore was within my client's free speech rights."
Gay and lesbian students are being harassed and bullied not only by students and teachers. And when called out on their bullshit, they're saying "but but... my first amendment rights give me the OK to make fun of that little faggot. IT'S IN THE BIBLE!!"
And let's not forget that he doesn't even now for sure if she had an abortion or not.
Should I be able to buy a billboard saying "my ex-boyfriend killed his mother" if I have no proof that it happened?
I do see how assholes scream "free speech" to excuse their hateful behavior, but what really can be done here?
did you just address him by his full board name!?? ... hahahahaa ... i can't imagine asking someone a serious question after typing out prince of dorkness ...
Godfather.
you can buy a billboard saying just about anything...the repercussions will be based on how true your information is...but a potential father has no recourse in this situation and no way to express his feeling of helplessness...this is a way to express that in a very public way...but if the WBC can do their shit, so can this guy no matter how I personally feel about it.
As far as bullying goes...that is different to me...*IF* she had the abortion that was a choice she made...he isn't putting up a billboard talking about a genetically caused thing...he is referencing the choice she made...
Being gay isn't a choice and I don't think these are related... consistently and constantly harassing someone to the point of suicide for doing what is natural is far different than putting up a billboard discussing a choice one person made(allegedly) hopefully that makes sense...I feel for her, not something I would ever want to put someone through, but where do we draw the line?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
As far as the billboard goes, all he references is "if the mother would not have killed our child", there is no name, and it could have been any woman (one night stand, affair, etc) it does not say his GF or ex-GF. She made it public by saying who she was.
Well, he publicly humiliated her and accused her of a murder that didn't happen. I say she gets awarded with a mega settlement that will put him in the poor house for the rest of his otherwise useless life.
All this "we wouldn't have known it was her" crap is silly... anyone who knew the two of them knew it was her. And THAT is who he was telling. This doesn't affect you and me... but the people who work with her... live net door... know her socially... they knew when they saw the billboard that she had been sexually active with him and were told she'd had an abortion.
He has no proof that an abortion even happened. She says she had a miscarriage. And he accused her of "killing" his baby.
I'm going to say that where ever we draw the line... this is passed it.
And based on the way this guy acted, I think it's a great thing they never had kids before they split.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It does not apply to this matter here, as it is not the government who is intruding on her privacy. The same can be said of free speech, as well as free press-- which brings up another point about all of this: What about the PRESS blowing this story up, and effectively making everyone who half-pays attention to any media aware of this abortion / miscarriage situation? Now, not only is this a shitty turn of events for two people in some town / city somewhere, it has been made front page news all over. I do not know whether this was the request of one person in the conflict or the other, but it's an issue worth some thought if it made the news without their consent. I mean, the controversy of the billboard itself is such a huge issue-- what is a newspaper but a mass-distributed billboard in some ways? What about the billboard maker? Is he or she at fault? Does he or she not have the right to refuse to put something on his own billboard? Maybe that person is the one who should be held accountable, if there is any accountability to be had?
Overall, my weigh in on this one is-- the billboard is terrible, the guy is an asshole, I do not know whether it was an abortion or a miscarriage, and neither does anyone but this woman and / or potentially her doctor, and MAYBE the man involved. But, I do believe that if the billboard is on private property, it is at the discretion of the billboard owner what can cand can't go on the billboard, not the government's, barring any local laws pertaining to it. Even then, I do not feel that the 9th and 10th amendments give local governments rights to abridge free speech either, some feel that the restrictions in the Constitution apply only to the Federal Government, but not the states. If people don't like it, they should boycott the billboard company. On the other hand, if someone wants to capitalize on advertising space for this newly-famous billboard, they should offer the billboard guy double to advertise on that space effectively wiping this stupid billboard out. Again, the whole thing is terrible and unfortunate, but I stand behind speech and property rights 100% until it can be proven that such speech has caused physical damage to one's person or property. This happens too few and far between to make new laws abridging speech. Hurt feelings and emotions simply aren't enough, because if they were, everything would be illegal. If we want to progress as a society, we shouldn't impede the free flow of ideas, out of which great art, ideas, and innovation are born because a few people are jerk-offs or are capable of being completely distasteful, offensive, or hurtful with their WORDS OR IMAGES.
The beauty of private property is that it allows for the most amount of self-governance. On your land, and your property, you should be free to say what you want while simultaneously preventing others from perverting your free expression. On public property, nothing should be banned. Nothing should be endorsed or subsidized either.
For those that think the book should be thrown at this guy, your attention should be aimed towards the billboard company.
she clearly didn't read the article ... she saw a pro-lifer and supported him blindly ...
IF is a huge keyword, and secondly, a bilboard claiming she did so isn't going to do anybody any good. I don't know the guy, don't live in his state, but I can tell you he's a huge douche for doing this. Seems like he did this to piss her off/make her look bad, in which case it's pretty shitty of him. Just seems like a very immature and foolish thing to do...a bilboard? really?
Nobody killed a baby.
She says she had a miscarriage. And even if she didn't... it wasn't a baby. Just a puddle of goo.