Judge tells boyfriend to remove abortion billboard

Ice Dancer said:
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
Click to expand...

that is exactly where i wanted this thread to go

thank you
 
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...

this guy will have a 'right to life' chick on his arm by the end of the year.
 
This is case that is taking place only 60 miles away from me. There is a question as to whether she aborted or had a miscarriage and a subsequent D&C. So there would be the issue of truth in the billboard. Also in a town the size of Alamogordo when his face is on the billboard, they know who she is. I am torn on this issue. I believe his first amendment right to free speech is in play here. If it is true, IF she had an abortion then I believe he is making a larger statement than HE wanted a child. If she had wanted the child and he didn't he would have been saddled with 18 years of child support. Why he can't make the same demand of her, that is, she has the child and he raises it is beyond me. It is a double standard that says when a women gets pregnant the man has no say in re the child.
 
If the woman had an abortion she had a legal medical procedure. How does that buffoon have the right to divulge her private medical records?

Suppose he had posted a billboard implying she had a gastric bypass or other med/surg procedure. Would that be the same thing?
 
christiefan915 said:
If the woman had an abortion she had a legal medical procedure. How does that buffoon have the right to divulge her private medical records?

Suppose he had posted a billboard implying she had a gastric bypass or other med/surg procedure. Would that be the same thing?
Click to expand...

The question, to me at least, is that he doesn't reference her name. By referring to her only as 'the mother' is that violating her privacy?
 
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...

Really, it would only be libel if he knew that she didn't have an abortion and he claimed that she did. And you'd need proof that he did know. I'm not sure about harassment laws, but in general, free speech protections in America are extremely broad.
 
cawacko said:
The question, to me at least, is that he doesn't reference her name. By referring to her only as 'the mother' is that violating her privacy?
Click to expand...

There is pretty much zero protection for divulging private information. Many countries have laws preventing the media from naming rape victims; that is not possible in America due to the first (although no respectable news organization does). If I can name a rape victim without legal penalty, I imagine I can mention that someone has had an abortion.
 
Watermark said:
There is pretty much zero protection for divulging private information. Many countries have laws preventing the media from naming rape victims; that is not possible in America due to the first (although no respectable news organization does). If I can name a rape victim without legal penalty, I imagine I can mention that someone has had an abortion.
Click to expand...

I thought you could only mention a rape victim's name if she goes public with it first.
 
christiefan915 said:
How does that buffoon have the right to divulge her private medical records?
Click to expand...

I believe that the right is interpreted through this obscure passage:

The First Amendment of the United States constitution said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

Just some worthless legalese, as usual. When will our government get some common sense?
 
Watermark said:
I believe that the right is interpreted through this obscure passage:



Just some worthless legalese, as usual. When will our government get some common sense?
Click to expand...

Then to hell with HIPAA.

Your Health Information Is Protected By Federal Law

Most of us believe that our medical and other health information is private and should be protected, and we want to know who has this information. The Privacy Rule, a Federal law, gives you rights over your health information and sets rules and limits on who can look at and receive your health information. The Privacy Rule applies to all forms of individuals' protected health information, whether electronic, written, or oral. The Security Rule, a Federal law that protects health information in electronic form, requires entities covered by HIPAA to ensure that electronic protected health information is secure.
 
christiefan915 said:
I thought you could only mention a rape victim's name if she goes public with it first.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_shield_law#Identification_of_alleged_rape_victims_by_media_outlets

in Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn 420 U.S. 469 (1975), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a Georgia statute that imposed civil liability on media for publishing a rape victim's name. The news station had obtained the victim's name from public court records– a factor the Supreme Court held to be important, noting that "the First and Fourteenth Amendments command nothing less than that the States may not impose sanctions on the publication of truthful information contained in official court records open to public inspection."

in Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court found a Florida statute which provided penalties for media outlets that publicized the name of an alleged rape victim unconstitutional.

in State of Florida v. Globe Communications Corp., 648 So.2d 110 (Fla. 1994), the Florida Supreme Court held that a Florida criminal statute that prohibited the media from identifying the names of sexual assault victims violated the First Amendment. In that case, Globe Communications Corp. twice published the name and identifying information of a sexual assault victim, violating the Florida statute. The paper had lawfully learned the victim's name through investigation. The Florida Supreme Court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Florida Star v. B.J.F., finding that the Florida statute barring any media publication of a rape victim's name was unconstitutional because it was "overbroad"; that is, it punished the media even if, for example, the name of the victim was already known in the community. It also found that the statute was "underinclusive" in that it punished only media publication and not acts by a private person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top