Abortion Billboard

[lastcallhall]

Here is a story from the AP

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.

The woman's lawyer said she had not discussed the pregnancy with her client. But for Ellen Jessen, whether her client had a miscarriage or an abortion is not the point. The central issue is her client's privacy and the fact that the billboard has caused severe emotional distress, Jessen said.

"Her private life is not a matter of public interest," she told the Alamogordo Daily News.

Jessen says her client's ex-boyfriend has crossed the line.

"Nobody is stopping him from talking about father's rights. ... but a person can't invade someone's private life."

For his part, Holmes invoked the U.S. Supreme Court decision from earlier this year concerning the Westboro Baptist Church, which is known for its anti-gay protests at military funerals and other high-profile events. He believes the high court's decision to allow the protests, as hurtful as they are, is grounds for his client to put up the abortion billboard.

"Very unpopular offensive speech," he told the Alamogordo Daily News. "The Supreme Court, in an 8 to 1 decision, said that is protected speech."

Holmes says he is going to fight the order to remove the billboard through a District Court appeal.

Question for debate.

1. Is this free speech or is this a violation of privacy?

[Choir Loft]

Here is a story from the AP

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.

The woman's lawyer said she had not discussed the pregnancy with her client. But for Ellen Jessen, whether her client had a miscarriage or an abortion is not the point. The central issue is her client's privacy and the fact that the billboard has caused severe emotional distress, Jessen said.

"Her private life is not a matter of public interest," she told the Alamogordo Daily News.

Jessen says her client's ex-boyfriend has crossed the line.

"Nobody is stopping him from talking about father's rights. ... but a person can't invade someone's private life."

For his part, Holmes invoked the U.S. Supreme Court decision from earlier this year concerning the Westboro Baptist Church, which is known for its anti-gay protests at military funerals and other high-profile events. He believes the high court's decision to allow the protests, as hurtful as they are, is grounds for his client to put up the abortion billboard.

"Very unpopular offensive speech," he told the Alamogordo Daily News. "The Supreme Court, in an 8 to 1 decision, said that is protected speech."

Holmes says he is going to fight the order to remove the billboard through a District Court appeal.

Question for debate.

1. Is this free speech or is this a violation of privacy?

This is the twenty first century equivalent of writing the girl's name on the bathroom wall. The only difference is the number of people who see it.

Nobody has questioned the advertising company that put the thing up in the first place. Are they immune? If gun manufacturers, big tobacco and your local bartender are liable for damages to individuals then why not advertisers?

Besides they've got bigger pockets than the guy who spent a grand to hang the sign.

Is it moral? It's better than using violence to prove a point.
Is it Christian? Probably not. Whatever happened to forgive and forget?
Personally, I'd be on my knees thanking God for being rid of the woman.
She isn't worth it.

[lastcallhall]

This is the twenty first century equivalent of writing the girl's name on the bathroom wall. The only difference is the number of people who see it.

Nobody has questioned the advertising company that put the thing up in the first place. Are they immune? If gun manufacturers, big tobacco and your local bartender are liable for damages to individuals then why not advertisers?

Besides they've got bigger pockets than the guy who spent a grand to hang the sign.

Good points but would the first amendment not trump here? I think ultimately I side with the boyfriend and his right to free speech so nobody else should be liable either.

Is it moral? It's better than using violence to prove a point.
Is it Christian? Probably not. Whatever happened to forgive and forget?
Personally, I'd be on my knees thanking God for being rid of the woman.
She isn't worth it.

I agree the sign was very poor taste and the abortion was over so there is not much to gain here by doing this. I think this is a case where you mourn your child but let the anger go.

[Goat]

Considering this statement

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

If this is true, then not only is it an invasion of privacy, but it is libel, which is illegal

[lastcallhall]

Considering this statement

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

If this is true, then not only is it an invasion of privacy, but it is libel, which is illegal

I agree if the boyfriend is lying she should sue him for libel and win. If it is not true do you see this as free speech or still a violation of privacy? I see this, if his claim is true, as similar to the Westboro crowd that free speech would trump.

[Meow Mix]

1. Is this free speech or is this a violation of privacy?

I don't know what the legalities are of depicting people that don't want to be depicted, so I wouldn't know what to say if the billboard included an image of her or her name or not. Since that isn't the case, I'll move on.

The billboard says that she "killed" his child. I think this could skirt slander if abortion isn't legally defined as murder.

Aside from that, such as if he had said "ABORT" instead of "KILL," then I think it would be protected by free speech so long as he could prove she had an abortion (otherwise it would be slander/libel as well).

Also, it seems he didn't mention a name or a picture of her: on what grounds does she assert he's talking about her specifically?

[MyReality]

This is not a privacy issue, nor a breach of any of his girlfriends rights. There was absolutely no indication of who the woman was, no name, or identification that could point to the girlfriend. Only those who knew them personally would know in which case would already know the situation.

This should come down to free speech. Either that or the man has a really bad lawyer.