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...
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