|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2011 - 1:52PM
#1
|
|
|
A New Mexico man's decision to lash out with a billboard ad saying his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes has touched off a legal debate over free speech and privacy rights.The sign on Alamogordo's main thoroughfare shows 35-year-old Greg 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 has recommended the billboard be removed. But Fultz's attorney argues the order violates his client's free speech rights. More at the article... beta.news.yahoo.com/jilted-ex-boyfriend-...The man's lawyer states: "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," Todd Holmes said." What do you all think?
"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2011 - 2:02PM
#2
|
|
|
I think, could be wrong that harrassement trumps free speech. I can have opinions all day long but I will be limited on how I might express them. I can preach my gospel from a park bench but if I start targeting passersby with insults then the police might have something to say. I say both, his free speech but also harrasement. In any case I guess that woman is glad she dumped that guy
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2011 - 2:06PM
#3
|
|
|
I'll have to try and find the case reference (I came across it during the SCOTUS decision on the Westboro idiots) but I'm pretty sure there is at least one SCOTUS reference saying that simple insults do not constitute the expression of an opinion or information such as would be protected by the First. That said, since the SCOTUS has now decided that the Westboro cultists have a legal right to stage their protests, that precedent may no longer apply.
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31Fiat justitia ruat caelum 
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2011 - 2:13PM
#4
|
|
|
What do I think? I think it shows that some anti-choice people can be the hateful, vitriolic people-bashers that I've alwys believed they are. His actions are unconscionable. Thanx 4 askin'.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2011 - 2:19PM
#5
|
|
|
What do I think? I think it shows that some anti-choice people can be the hateful, vitriolic people-bashers that I've alwys believed they are. His actions are unconscionable.
Thanx 4 askin'.
Well, I don't quite think you're being fair. If he's right and she aborted his child without talking to him, he has every right to be angry and hurt. I don't agree with him doing the billboard and think it was wrong, but I won't judge his actions that likely came from hurt as harshly as you are.
My best friend (a male) got his girlfriend pregnant many years ago. They were going to get married and be together. She was even picking out names. Then one day, she came over and handed him a piece of paper showing she had aborted their child and she never even talked to him about it. The amount of pain and hurt he felt is something I don't think anyone could understand unless they went through it. Needless to say, their relationship didn't survive after that. That being said, we don't know that he's "anti-choice," it may just be that he's "anti-choice" when it's his child or he preferred to be talked to about it first.
All of which is irrelevant since the question is, does he have the right to say what he wants on the billboard under "freedom of speech" or does this constitute harassment?
"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2011 - 2:30PM
#6
|
|
|
I'll have to try and find the case reference (I came across it during the SCOTUS decision on the Westboro idiots) but I'm pretty sure there is at least one SCOTUS reference saying that simple insults do not constitute the expression of an opinion or information such as would be protected by the First. That said, since the SCOTUS has now decided that the Westboro cultists have a legal right to stage their protests, that precedent may no longer apply.
Well, and add to that, he wasn't actually insulting anyone. According to the article, he just referred to her as "the mother." Only those that knew him and knew who he was dating would have known who she is.
"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2011 - 2:35PM
#7
|
|
|
Well, and add to that, he wasn't actually insulting anyone. According to the article, he just referred to her as "the mother." Only those that knew him and knew who he was dating would have known who she is.
My bad, I misread the OP. However, I'd imagine that harassment and violation of privacy overrules the First. Otherwise, slander and libel laws would be unenforceable.
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31Fiat justitia ruat caelum
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2011 - 2:44PM
#8
|
|
|
A New Mexico man's decision to lash out with a billboard ad saying his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes has touched off a legal debate over free speech and privacy rights.
The sign on Alamogordo's main thoroughfare shows 35-year-old Greg 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 has recommended the billboard be removed.
But Fultz's attorney argues the order violates his client's free speech rights. More at the article...
beta.news.yahoo.com/jilted-ex-boyfriend-...
The man's lawyer states:
"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," Todd Holmes said."
What do you all think?
In the politically correct orthodoxy, abortion and homosexuality always trumps the First Amendment in all its facets. This will eventually shut down every Catholic Hospital in America.
For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.
St. Thomas Aquinas
If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2011 - 2:55PM
#9
|
|
|
I'll have to try and find the case reference (I came across it during the SCOTUS decision on the Westboro idiots) but I'm pretty sure there is at least one SCOTUS reference saying that simple insults do not constitute the expression of an opinion or information such as would be protected by the First. That said, since the SCOTUS has now decided that the Westboro cultists have a legal right to stage their protests, that precedent may no longer apply.
Well, and add to that, he wasn't actually insulting anyone. According to the article, he just referred to her as "the mother." Only those that knew him and knew who he was dating would have known who she is.
That might be quite a few people. Perhaps she didn't want them to know about it.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2011 - 2:55PM
#10
|
|
|
Girlchristian wrote: > Needless to say, their relationship didn't survive after that. My marriage ended over a similar action by my then-wife. I did not take being told that my child-to-be was "none of your business, and you should just shut up" very well for some reason. Of course, the very fact that I was told that basically showed that the relationship had died some time earlier and I just hadn't noticed the demise. > That being said, we don't know that he's "anti-choice," it may just be that he's > "anti-choice" when it's his child or he preferred to be talked to about it first. Quite possibly either one. There are many people who think that abortion should be legal, but wouldn't personally have one. In that respect it's like thinking that drinking alcohol should be legal but not personally drinking any. And it would certainly be nice if fathers had some input on the fate of their children, though that usually isn't the case when there's any disagreement over it. I am not by any means anti-choice. The problem is that there is really no way for *both* parents to make different choices. Currently things are set up so the mother has all the choice and the father has none. We had discussed having a kid, we had planned for it, we had even discussed using IVF when pregnancy turned out to be difficult ... then after things finally worked, she changed her mind and aborted the child. I don't know if the boyfriend in the news story had a similar event, but if so I can understand why he did what he did - he would have been (and should have been!) very, very angry about it. His resulting actions were boorish, but I don't think they should be illegal. If it was untrue - if it was libel - that would be one thing. But if it was true, his saying it - even in such a boorish manner - should be legal IMO.
|
|
|
