Legal battle ensues after man puts up a billboard denouncing his ex-gf's abortion

[solanis]

Greg Fultz of New Mexico is facing a lawsuit after he paid for a billboard in public view that alleges that a former lover aborted their child. Two weeks ago, the billboard went up bearing the words “This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!,” and with a photograph of Fultz holding the outline of an infant in his hands. Fultz’s former female companion has sued him and claims that the billboard violates her right to privacy. The suit demands that the billboard should come down. In response, Fultz and his attorney have appealed the restraining order saying that his rights to free speech are being abridged.

“As distasteful and offensive as the sign may be to some, for over 200 years in this country the First Amendment protects distasteful and offensive speech,” said Fultz’s attorney Todd Holmes. He cited the Supreme Court decision in the case of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church of Kansas, which conducts offensive protests at military and other funerals, to make his case for Fultz’s billboard message. A debate has thus been unfurled over free speech and privacy rights. Holmes told the Alamogordo Daily News, “The Supreme Court, in an 8 to 1 decision, said that is protected speech.” “My argument is: What Fultz said is the truth,” Holmes said in response, saying Fultz believes his girlfriend obtained an abortion. He will take his fight to the local district court. The billboard in question does not mention Fultz's former female companion by name, nor does it identify Fultz himself.

The woman in question has so far remained unidentified. According to media reports, she admits that she did not consult with Fultz about the termination of her pregnancy. She denies having had an abortion and claims that she had a miscarriage. Ellen Jessen, the attorney for the former girlfriend would neither confirm nor deny the abortion. She says the issue is not the abortion or the miscarriage but the right to privacy. “Nobody is stopping him from talking about father’s rights … but a person can’t invade someone’s private life,” she told the Alamogordo Daily News.

Attorney Matt Bowman of the Alliance Defense Fund, a prolife organization, spoke to the grief borne by the fathers of aborted children. “Regardless of the prudential character of this particular billboard, it does highlight a deep and festering wound in our society: the harm that abortion causes to the fathers of aborted children,” he said.

Bowman noted, “Most attention on post-abortion psychological harm is focused on the mothers, but men similarly have intense grief due to abortions of their children, both when they participate and when the abortion is done against their wishes.” He pointed out that organizations such as the Rachel’s Vineyard, or the Catholic Church’s Project Rachel ministry, can be contacted to help men grieving over an abortion. Right to Life of New Mexico initially endorsed the billboard but backed out of co-sponsoring it upon learning of the details behind it.

Commenting on the controversy was Kary James of Yahoo. Zeroing in on Fultz’s defense that the Westboro Baptist Church court case underscores his right to offensive speech, James wrote “The accuracy of Westboro's speech cannot be proven. Fultz's speech is potentially libelous. While a court can determine whether or not a religious belief is sincerely held, it is unable make a factual ruling on whether God does or does not hate homosexuals. Fultz's girlfriend's pregnancy loss is a different matter entirely. The woman's friends claim she suffered a miscarriage, while Fultz insists she had an abortion. Unlike the religious claim, the facts surrounding a pregnancy loss can be determined through a doctor's testimony. If Fultz's claim is true, the billboard still does not qualify for free speech protections for the reasons given above. If the girlfriend's claim is true, then far from being protected speech, the billboard is libelous, defamatory and may constitute emotional abuse.” James opined that revealing the alleged abortion could endanger the woman’s chances of obtaining employment.

Source: http://www.speroforum.com/a/55122/Li...-in-New-Mexico

http://i54.tinypic.com/e0iftl.jpg

turns out the guy is a total whack job (SHOCKING) from his twitter:

Spoiler: show

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/9...gnontwitte.png

scary. what do you think of the freedom of speech issues here? how about the question of whether men have any rights in matters of abortion?

[MaachaQ]

Jeebus... no wonder she aborted >.> why you would even date such whackjob is astounding, let alone sleep with it...

Freedom of speech is WAY different than defamation.

[Lucavi]

Because women love assholes? They like man-renovation projects just as much as they love interior design projects? The list goes on and on, but the case itself is actually interesting. Does this actually constitute a violation of freedom of speech, or does it constitute a violation of someone's privacy? Which does the constitution hold in higher regard?

I'm betting on freedom of speech.

[Tyrath]

Can't they have it taken down based on the fact that it says she KILLED their child? If I saw just that pic of that billboard and nothing else I would've thought it was a murder and not an abortion.

[Pirian]

If the billboard doesn't have any of her actual information, then what is the problem? Yeah, the guy is a fucking nut, and probably needs psychiatric help, but I don't see any deformation of character.

[Tyche]

p sure free speech doesn't extend to HIPAA provided medical procedures. Dude is fighting a losing battle

[aurik]

If the billboard doesn't have any of her actual information, then what is the problem? Yeah, the guy is a fucking nut, and probably needs psychiatric help, but I don't see any deformation of character.

^

Free speech is awesome in many ways, this is one way that it isn't. She should get over it.

[Penthesilea]

Are you allowed to use someone's likeness with out their permission?

If it's her picture up there, why is that allowed w/o her consent?

[Melena]

Yup, if Westboro's protests are protected, being that no names are mentioned on the billboard, this should be protected as well.

[Chun Liroy]

Are you allowed to use someone's likeness with out their permission?

If it's her picture up there, why is that allowed w/o her consent?

Looks like the guys pic.

[recuperi]

Are you allowed to use someone's likeness with out their permission?

If it's her picture up there, why is that allowed w/o her consent?

I almost think that's actually him up there on the billboard lol. Surely he couldn't get her to do a pose like that

Edit: beaten by seconds

[Cream Soda]

p sure free speech doesn't extend to HIPAA provided medical procedures. Dude is fighting a losing battle

"The mother" isn't enough to get him on revealing her confidential information.

"the mother" could be anyone.


The guy is a fucking lunatic, but he's revealed nothing about her. He (doubtingly) been fucking many bitches.

[Penthesilea]

I almost think that's actually him up there on the billboard lol. Surely he couldn't get her to do a pose like that

Edit: beaten by seconds

Oh ok, I saw the long hair and figured it was her picture on the billboard. Didn't see the twitter page to know he had long hair.

[Tyche]

I guess that's right since none of her information there, although she is linked to the billboard by having his picture and "our", although no specifics are given. You don't really need specifics to violate HIPAA either though. If I told a nurse on the floor that "hey, chad's girlfriend has herpes", that would be a violation. Essentially, this billboard is saying "Hey, my GF had an abortion". If anyone knows she's dated that guy, it would violate her rights. I had a medical legal/ethical book I sold to chegg a week ago, wish I still had it.

[Franzer]

my home state! also, guy would have probably killed/ate the baby anyway just from the look of him.

[Ksandra]

iono what you all are bitching about. Totally linking this in every "what should I do about my gf who is cheating/leaving/won't talk/etc. etc." thread.

[Mertron]

just thought you guys would like to know that latin quote on his twitter or whatever translates to something like "if I wanted your opinion, I'd read your entrails"

totally sane

edit: thats better

[Pirian]

I guess that's right since none of her information there, although she is linked to the billboard by having his picture and "our", although no specifics are given. You don't really need specifics to violate HIPAA either though. If I told a nurse on the floor that "hey, chad's girlfriend has herpes", that would be a violation. Essentially, this billboard is saying "Hey, my GF had an abortion". If anyone knows she's dated that guy, it would violate her rights. I had a medical legal/ethical book I sold to chegg a week ago, wish I still had it.

"Our" is a pronoun with no procession to it, "Chad's" adds procession to the noun "girlfriend". I'm just guessing that this is what makes it different. Maybe if he had added his personal information (maybe the picture qualifies it?) then it would matter, but I doubt it.

I know it's semantics, but that is a lot of what legal battles are, anyways.

[Valisk]

I guess that's right since none of her information there, although she is linked to the billboard by having his picture and "our", although no specifics are given. You don't really need specifics to violate HIPAA either though. If I told a nurse on the floor that "hey, chad's girlfriend has herpes", that would be a violation. Essentially, this billboard is saying "Hey, my GF had an abortion".

Which girlfriend? It's too vauge. What if Chad had multiple girlfriends that YOU didn't know about?

If anyone knows she's dated that guy, it would violate her rights. I had a medical legal/ethical book I sold to chegg a week ago, wish I still had it.

Is this entirely true? It would seem it would be a case by case basis. Otherwise wouldn't it be a violation if you told your parents that your GF had an abortion and she didn't want them to know? What rights do the father have in cases like that? A child seems like shared privacy. Seems unfair that he can't tell anyone that his own child was aborted. (Billboard aside because you make it sound like he can't tell anyone without her permission.)

[Ksandra]

Is this entirely true? It would seem it would be a case by case basis. Otherwise wouldn't it be a violation if you told your parents that your GF had an abortion and she didn't want them to know? What rights do the father have in cases like that? A child seems like shared privacy. Seems unfair that he can't tell anyone that his own child was aborted. (Billboard aside because you make it sound like he can't tell anyone without her permission.)

You bring up a good point, how is it fair to say since the mother doesn't want it known it's illegal for the father to say? If that is really true, holy shit is that terrible.