Bill board depicting photo and personal info of woman that had an abortion

Paid for by her ex.

Is this protected by Free Speech?

It is happening right now.

The person that links a cited news article wins a virtual lap dance from yours truly. :)
On my phone at work now and unable to, myself.

Views: 120

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This statement is winning.
Haha epic
I don't know if it's legal, but it definitely leaves him open to a civil suit for very serious harassment charges.
That's true.  He may not have mentioned her by name, but his picture is on there plain as day; any mutual friend or acquaintance can see that and know who he means by 'the mother' and 'our child.'  She might have to see that every day and I can't imagine it doesn't stir up emotions with her.  This does constitute harassment.

Oh, yes, he DID manage to get he name attached to his advertisement.  Fox26 decended into the gutter and pointed out that her first name was the same as the initials of the "fund" this a-hole set up so that he could put up the billboard - and spelt it out.  It wasn't a terribly common name so there can't have been many candidates to choose from in that particular town in that particular State of the U.S.A.   In other words, there is not much chance of her remaining anonymous in that town. 

A miscarriage (or a late abortion) can be a rollercoaster in terms of emotions because of the sudden hormone changes.  Having to deal with the public humiliation which this guy dished out would be devastating to someone in this fragile condition.  The effects on some brain structures (the hippocampus, for example - which is involved in memory processing) are likely to be long-lasting, if not permanent at this stress level.  What this guy did is thus akin to a serious physical assault, only worse, because the injury cannot be seen unless specifically tested for by a neuro-psychologist. 

I hope the woman gets some reasonable compensation for her pain, suffering and reduction in her ability to earn an income.   I hope no other woman is naive enough to have any kind of sexual relationship with this sorry replica of a human being. 

My friend posted this story on her facebook yesterday. It seems to me that this man is within his first amendment rights. The billboard does not feature any specific women's name or likeliness. As far as anyone can tell, this is just the usual pro-life propaganda. IMO, it was the law suit she filed that brought her name into the public spotlight not the billboard.


These same rights protect everyone, including the Westboro Baptist Church. We may not like the message but they have the right to do it.

I could see that side of it if the billboard mentioned her specifically or the picture was of her and him together holding the 'child'. There's do doubt that she may have felt harmed by the situation but I don't think in this case that he went outside his rights. It's like how the WBC uses messages like "God hates fags" and "So-&-So* BURN IN HELL!" These are hateful messages but are still within their rights to freedom of speech and expression. Either way, this guy is scum and like someone said earlier, the lady should be happy she didn't end up having a kid with him.


*They've used faces of public figures such as Liz Taylor and Lady Gaga

I'm not sure how the girlfriend is identifiable by the billboard. I read on a news site earlier that they had been dating for only a few months. Obviously, this guy ignores the whole "no sex before marriage" thing. Could it be possible he was talking about someone else or no person in particular?

I don't think "free speech" means "exempt from responsibility." Though it some cases in may cause harm to individuals, we all have the right to speak our minds. We also have the right to sue someone for the damages if you can prove they were slandering you, specifically. You are right that Canada and the U.S have different laws regarding the freedom of speech. I disagree with the way some things in America are labeled as F.O.S. Like when the WBC uses a person's face on their billboards, that is publicly slandering someone. However, according to the courts, they have the right to picket, it seems, however they wish.
The aim of "free speech" is to be able to say whatever one likes about the current government.   It does not allow people to say anything they like about other people.  That is a common, but very wrong, myth.
Westboro's "freedom of speech" is possible because, and only because, they are classed as a religious organization.  This conveniently exempts them from charges that would otherwise be laid.  This may be a peculiarly U.S. loophole in the laws of libel and slander.
Well, it turns out I got some bad information.  Please excuse me for not confirming, but one source said her name was Cani.  I did not know that the C.A.N.I. actually does exist.  Being that her name is not on there, the only danger is people that they were mutually acquainted with, and her privacy was not violated.  You are correct Scarlette!  I stand corrected, thank you.  This douche bag IS within his rights, and I retract my previous statement that the judge was correct in ordering that the billboard be taken down.

I in no way personally agree with his actions, but looking at this objectively, I can't say he is wrong with putting up the sign.  However, he should have left out the statement singling out his ex, whether by name or otherwise.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service