Judge tells boyfriend to remove abortion billboard

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Judge tells boyfriend to remove abortion billboard


A state district judge Thursday ordered an Alamogordo man to immediately take down a billboard that implies his ex-girlfriend had an abortion.

State District Judge James Counts issued the ruling as part of protective order the woman sought after Greg Fultz, 35, took out the sign on the city's main thoroughfare in mid-May.

The billboard shows 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 had recommended the billboard be removed.

But Fultz's attorney said his client is adamant about protecting his free speech rights and will appeal.

"He said he is prepared to go to jail for this," said attorney Todd Holmes.

"His position is that this billboard is not really about her. It's about his statement of fathers' rights."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/06/23/national/a170326D65.DTL#ixzz1QEFXl3tP

if she had an abortion, should he be compelled to take down the sign?
 
I fully agree with the man only if he is being accurate. If a woman aborted his child-she had her legal right to an abortion, but he has his free speech right to decry his loss as loudly and as publicly as he wishes.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I fully agree with the man only if he is being accurate. If a woman aborted his child-she had her legal right to an abortion, but he has his free speech right to decry his loss as loudly and as publicly as he wishes.
Click to expand...


Not really. Disclosing private facts about a person and disseminating them publicly is actionable in some states.
 
Ice Dancer said:
The mans first amendment right to rent a billboard for his message is his right- I saw no persons name mentioned~
Click to expand...

And the woman's right to privacy is her right to privacy, which right is protected in the civil courts of some states in this country. And it was a photograph of her. No need to mention the name when you have a picture of her.
 
Yurt said:
public interest exception? further...did he name an individual? is an abortion, when the woman aborts a child you wanted, private?
Click to expand...

I don't know that the public has in interest in whether this guy's girlfriend had an abortion. Naming an individual is not necessary to disclose private facts about that individual. And yes, an abortion is private.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
I don't know that the public has in interest in whether this guy's girlfriend had an abortion. Naming an individual is not necessary to disclose private facts about that individual. And yes, an abortion is private.
Click to expand...

what about the guy's right to talk about his child? the public interest, arguably, is there because the issue is definitely one the public has an interest in, eg, the rights of the father. are the rights of the father outweighed by her interest in an expectation of privacy regarding her abortion? i believe abortion is only private because it is viewed as a medical procedure. the other interesting part is, if he went around just telling his friends, do you think she could see for an injunction or damages for that?

i'm pretty sure the guy is going to lose, but it is an interesting topic and one i think is of public interest.
 
As one person commented on the article, "Good move, based on this deranged moron,we don't need another Greg Fultz running around."

And as another commented, "That guy is never getting laid again."

That old adage, "Freedom isn't free" will become quite apparent to Mr. Fultz when he's resigned to paying for "companionship". He'll realize the true price of "free" speech.
 
apple0154 said:
As one person commented on the article, "Good move, based on this deranged moron,we don't need another Greg Fultz running around."

And as another commented, "That guy is never getting laid again."

That old adage, "Freedom isn't free" will become quite apparent to Mr. Fultz when he's resigned to paying for "companionship". He'll realize the true price of "free" speech.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with whether he was within his legal rights to do this or not.
 
one legal opinion on the matter...

Fultz plans on fighting the order based on his First Amendment rights under the Supreme Court's decision in Snyder v. Phelps, which protects repugnant and offensive speech, even if it causes emotional distress, over the right of privacy, e.g. a funeral service.

After thinking about this, what do I think?

First, under Synder v. Phelps, the tort case should not stand as political speech should trump the emotional injury.

Second, I have a hard time accepting the line that the privacy rights of Lawrence trump the speech rights of Fultz. The real controversy is not the difference between freedom of speech and privacy (freedom from speech) but in form. The speech in question is quite sophomoric but, nonetheless, quite important political speech. If this message were in an autobiography, a movie, or a Facebook status update, then there would be no problem with Fultz's message. Fultz could walk door to door to tell his story to all 36,000 people in Alamogordo and this would be protected speech. However, since it occurred on a billboard or a non-traditional form of personal and political advertisement for this issue then someone finds it offensive.

Third, the type of speech in question, that "abortion is murder" is typical political speech, especially in relation to pro-life protests. I would say that this is quintessential political speech as the people who employ it desire a change in the law. While I know that Harrogate disagrees with this type of discourse, it is a rhetorically valid definitional argument for certain audiences. The strength of the argument rests on upon the emotional aspects of the message, i.e. the anger within the claim abortion is murder. And, under Cohen v. California, the emotional aspects of the message can be as important as the message itself. To punish this type of speech is to punish the content and form of the message and the government should not be able to punish either.

Further, though the claim is quite reductive and rests an appeal to pity, i.e. the manipulation of the emotional aspect of the message, I do not see how it would be slander unless she had a miscarriage. The standards for slander for a private citizen are much lower than a public citizen and since acted recklessly, i.e. not knowing the facts of the case before publishing them on a billboard, it seems like a defamation case against Fultz would be easy.

However, knowing this, if she mad a miscarriage she would not be arguing a right to privacy. Why argue the harder case when you can argue the easy, winning case? You don't.

Fourth, in this case, the right to privacy seems to mean that Lawrence ought to be free from hearing or seeing a message and that Fultz ought not to speak out on certain messages. I find that in the first instance, Lawrence has no case. While the second instance is quite complex, I am not sure if she has a case based on notions of privacy.

Privacy, in this case, seems to rest on an understanding that medical decisions, especially abortion, occur only between a woman and her doctor. While abortion rests on the woman's decision but that decision does not occur within a social vacuum. By arguing privacy, it seems that Lawrence is trying to frame the controversy that Fultz is trying to take away her rights. However, Fultz's argument criticizes Lawrence's decision and a person is not free from criticism over this type of decision.

read more
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top