there you are!
here is his thinking on this...
""My original intentions when I started this campaign were quite simple," Fultz said. "I just wanted to shed the light on pro-life issues and fathers' rights. I have had no closure over my own personal loss and that's where the billboard came into play.""
i am all for father's rights and stuff, but i am not sure that free speech covers spreading accusations in this form. if he KNEW she had an abortion, that may be different, but on the whole, this is a very classless thing to do. he could have launched a civil action and just gone to court. humiliation of anyone is not a right, but mean...
Apparently it was a miscarriage, not an abortion. I'd have thought this would constitute libel, but perhaps I am mistaken. Despite the unfortunate circumstances, at least this woman can take solace that this psycho didn't end up the father of her baby.
ALAMOGORDO, N.M. — 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.
"The person that links a cited news article wins a virtual lap dance from yours truly."
You didn't really limit this to one person. You might end up owing a lot of virtual lap dances.
I would lean towards this being libel more than freedom of speech.
And I agree: good riddance to bad rubbish! Who'd want to reproduce with those sour genetics?
My take on this: He IS practicing his right to freedom of speech. But he is violating the rights of another by doing so, so he is wrong. You can't practice your rights in a way that you will violate the rights of others. He should have simply paid for an anti-abortion billboard. Once he had his picture, his ex's name and the abortion statement on there, it became an utter violation of her privacy. The judge was right in ordering the billboard be taken down. I hope there is not a huge mess that has been created amongst all of her friends and family that might not have been aware of the miscarriage situation. Whether or not she had an abortion or a miscarriage, it's her business and should be kept private.
Had to add a link to be the fourth! LOL