Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on June 8, 2011 at 2:27pm

Dear douche bag,
It is legal libel to post your accusations in that form.
It is also egotistical and stupid.
No one cares about your white trash baby drama nonsense.
I bet if it was a billboard about gay guys you would be accusing them of shoving their lifestyle down your throat, so why are you doing it to everyone else?
Hypocrite.
P.S. It is obvious you would be an unfit father anyway, so by choice or happenstance, I am personally glad your genetics will go no further that your shriveled little balls or tear mixed cum stains.
You are far too malicious to contribute to the human species.
Please die in a fire,

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Justin Humphrey on June 8, 2011 at 4:38pm

This statement is winning.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Ward on June 9, 2011 at 6:46am

Like!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Morgan Matthew on June 9, 2011 at 7:24am

Haha epic

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by surgoshan on June 8, 2011 at 3:22pm

I don't know if it's legal, but it definitely leaves him open to a civil suit for very serious harassment charges.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Merlin Mercer on June 8, 2011 at 4:06pm

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on June 9, 2011 at 7:24pm

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. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scarlette Blues on June 8, 2011 at 3:27pm

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on June 8, 2011 at 3:47pm

 "We may not like the message but they have the right to do it."

 

In this case, it's a question of harm, not his rights to free speech.  Having freedom of speech doesn't make you unaccountable for any damages you cause.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scarlette Blues on June 8, 2011 at 4:14pm

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

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on June 8, 2011 at 5:02pm

"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."

 

In this case, the courts will probably determine whether or not there were legitimate damages and whether or not the sign is within Fulz's rights.  Supposedly, his girlfriend is identifiable based on the content of the signs, but I don't have enough details to really weigh in on what that means here.

 

I'm simply speaking to the principle of the thing.  More and more I get the feeling that the term 'free speech' in popular usage means 'exempt from responsibility'.  Personally, I don't support that at all.  With regard to Westboro, whether or not their activities fall within their rights is going to depend on the jurisdiction.  Some of their protests and propaganda would not be legal in Canada, but that doesn't mean that freedom of speech does not exist in Canada: the limitations are simply defined differently.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scarlette Blues on June 8, 2011 at 5:23pm

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.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page