Author Topic: Jilted Ex-Boyfriend's Abortion Billboard Ignites Free Speech Debate (Read 3082 times)

Dos Equis · « **on:** June 08, 2011, 10:36:48 AM »

Don't like this at all. He shouldn't be putting this on blast like this. At least not without consequences.

Jilted Ex-Boyfriend's Abortion Billboard Ignites Free Speech Debate
Published June 07, 2011
Associated Press

ALAMOGORDO, N.M.-- 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.

"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.

The woman's friends say she had a miscarriage, not an abortion, according to a report in the Albuquerque Journal.

Holmes disputes that, saying his case is based on the accuracy of his client's statement.

"My argument is: What Fultz said is the truth," Holmes said.

The woman's lawyer said she had not discussed the pregnancy with her client. But for Ellen Jessen, whether her client had a miscarriage or an abortion is not the point. The central issue is her client's privacy and the fact that the billboard has caused severe emotional distress, Jessen said.

"Her private life is not a matter of public interest," she told the Alamogordo Daily News.

Jessen says her client's ex-boyfriend has crossed the line.

"Nobody is stopping him from talking about father's rights. ... but a person can't invade someone's private life."

For his part, Holmes said that during a domestic court hearing last week he pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this year concerning the Westboro Baptist Church, which is known for demonstration signs and slogans that include anti-gay slurs.

"Very unpopular offensive speech," he told the Alamogordo Daily News. "The Supreme Court, in an 8 to 1 decision, said that is protected speech."

Holmes says he is going to fight the order to remove the billboard through a District Court appeal.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/07/jilted-ex-boyfriend-puts-up-abortion-billboard/?test=latestnews

kcballer · « **Reply #1 on:** June 08, 2011, 10:41:44 AM »

Hmmm if it's true it's not necessarily libel but i do not like the precedent it sets

Dos Equis · « **Reply #2 on:** June 08, 2011, 10:46:30 AM »

Quote from: kcballer on June 08, 2011, 10:41:44 AM

Hmmm if it's true it's not necessarily libel but i do not like the precedent it sets

I think this is the real issue:

The woman's lawyer said she had not discussed the pregnancy with her client. But for Ellen Jessen, whether her client had a miscarriage or an abortion is not the point. The central issue is her client's privacy and the fact that the billboard has caused severe emotional distress, Jessen said.

"Her private life is not a matter of public interest," she told the Alamogordo Daily News.

tu_holmes · « **Reply #3 on:** June 08, 2011, 10:47:56 AM »

Her private life is also his private life right?

He can talk about his private life all he wants to can't he?

kcballer · « **Reply #4 on:** June 08, 2011, 10:54:15 AM »

Quote from: tu_holmes on June 08, 2011, 10:47:56 AM

Her private life is also his private life right?

He can talk about his private life all he wants to can't he?

That sets a standard whereby any jilted ex-lover can release explicit details about the other and claim it was their private life too so they can release it.

If someone wants to release their own details that's fine, but when it's someone's name or details you just can not allow that.

By your thinking, we'll all be signing no-disclosure contracts before getting into a relationship or intimacy.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #5 on:** June 08, 2011, 11:02:28 AM »

Quote from: kcballer on June 08, 2011, 10:54:15 AM

That sets a standard whereby any jilted ex-lover can release explicit details about the other and claim it was their private life too so they can release it.

If someone wants to release their own details that's fine, but when it's someone's name or details you just can not allow that.

By your thinking, we'll all be signing no-disclosure contracts before getting into a relationship or intimacy.

Agree.

tu_holmes · « **Reply #6 on:** June 08, 2011, 11:55:06 AM »

KC... I actually don't agree with it... I was just mentioning that little tidbit.

It's like when you get a divorce... anything and everything is fair game, and usually court documents aren't sealed. So maybe you should get a non-disclosure agreement before you get married.

tonymctones · « **Reply #7 on:** June 08, 2011, 03:48:52 PM »

Dont care...the laws in regards to parental rights and abortion are so one sided is not even funny

if this is the only thing women have to deal with for having the sole discretion of whether or not to kill a mans child then I say they got off easy as shit.

are we going to start allowing ppl to sue for bad mouthing ex's to their friends?

in order to succesfully sue you have to prove damages, what are her damages?

Fury · « **Reply #8 on:** June 08, 2011, 04:42:40 PM »

Quote from: kcballer on June 08, 2011, 10:54:15 AM

That sets a standard whereby any jilted ex-lover can release explicit details about the other and claim it was their private life too so they can release it.

If someone wants to release their own details that's fine, but when it's someone's name or details you just can not allow that.

By your thinking, we'll all be signing no-disclosure contracts before getting into a relationship or intimacy.

So where do you draw the line on what constitutes "explicit details"?

This seems fine to me.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #9 on:** June 08, 2011, 05:37:46 PM »

Quote from: BerzerkFury on June 08, 2011, 04:42:40 PM

So where do you draw the line on what constitutes "explicit details"?

This seems fine to me.

I'd draw the line at something that ordinarily wouldn't be public information.

tonymctones · « **Reply #10 on:** June 08, 2011, 05:41:29 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on June 08, 2011, 05:37:46 PM

I'd draw the line at something that ordinarily wouldn't be public information.

what do you consider public beach?

is telling your friends info public?

what if this was common knowledge among their friends and family?

Dos Equis · « **Reply #11 on:** June 08, 2011, 05:47:46 PM »

Quote from: tonymctones on June 08, 2011, 05:41:29 PM

what do you consider public beach?

is telling your friends info public?

what if this was common knowledge among their friends and family?

I don't think sharing intimate details of your life with friends and family makes the info public. Sorta depends on what the info is and how it is shared.

I doubt the fact a woman has an abortion is information that she normally tells the world about.

Even if it becomes common knowledge, I don't think it's appropriate to try and publicly humiliate someone.

tonymctones · « **Reply #12 on:** June 08, 2011, 05:52:23 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on June 08, 2011, 05:47:46 PM

I don't think sharing intimate details of your life with friends and family makes the info public. Sorta depends on what the info is and how it is shared.

I doubt the fact a woman has an abortion is information that she normally tells the world about.

Even if it becomes common knowledge, I don't think it's appropriate to try and publicly humiliate someone.

I agree this wasnt the right thing to do, but again what do we define as public info?

it has to be definable

Dos Equis · « **Reply #13 on:** June 08, 2011, 05:57:14 PM »

Quote from: tonymctones on June 08, 2011, 05:52:23 PM

I agree this wasnt the right thing to do, but again what do we define as public info?

it has to be definable

Sort of circular, but I think public information is info you normally share with the public. Let's just take the abortion issue in this story. Don't you think the fact a woman had an abortion is not something she normally shares with the public?

tonymctones · « **Reply #14 on:** June 08, 2011, 07:50:49 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on June 08, 2011, 05:57:14 PM

Sort of circular, but I think public information is info you normally share with the public. Let's just take the abortion issue in this story. Don't you think the fact a woman had an abortion is not something she normally shares with the public?

depends on what you define as public bro, if its friends then yes...if its the entire world then probably not but then again everyones definition of public is different.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #15 on:** June 24, 2011, 11:57:13 AM »

Terrible thing he did. Glad the judge made the right call. $:-\$

Judge Tells Ex-Boyfriend to Remove Abortion Billboard
Published June 23, 2011
Associated Press

Abortion Billboard_DeMa.jpg

AP Photo/Alamogordo Daily News

FILE: A New Mexico man was ordered by a judge to take down a billboard that implies his ex-girlfriend had an abortion.

ALMOGORDO, N.M. – 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," attorney Todd Holmes said.

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

It was unclear if the woman had an abortion or a miscarriage.

Her attorney, Ellen Jessen, said earlier this month that she has not discussed the pregnancy with her client because that was not the point. The central issue is her client's privacy and the fact that the billboard has caused severe emotional distress, she said.

Jessen didn't immediately respond Thursday to a call and email seeking comment.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/23/judge-tells-boyfriend-to-remove-abortion-billboard/?test=latestnews

Skip8282 · « **Reply #16 on:** June 24, 2011, 02:22:58 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on June 24, 2011, 11:57:13 AM

Terrible thing he did. Glad the judge made the right call. $:-\$

Judge Tells Ex-Boyfriend to Remove Abortion Billboard
Published June 23, 2011
Associated Press

Abortion Billboard_DeMa.jpg

AP Photo/Alamogordo Daily News

FILE: A New Mexico man was ordered by a judge to take down a billboard that implies his ex-girlfriend had an abortion.

ALMOGORDO, N.M. – 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," attorney Todd Holmes said.

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

It was unclear if the woman had an abortion or a miscarriage.

Her attorney, Ellen Jessen, said earlier this month that she has not discussed the pregnancy with her client because that was not the point. The central issue is her client's privacy and the fact that the billboard has caused severe emotional distress, she said.

Jessen didn't immediately respond Thursday to a call and email seeking comment.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/23/judge-tells-boyfriend-to-remove-abortion-billboard/?test=latestnews

Damn, she had to go into court and admit she fucked that guy? HA

Dos Equis · « **Reply #17 on:** June 24, 2011, 02:58:28 PM »

Quote from: Skip8282 on June 24, 2011, 02:22:58 PM

Damn, she had to go into court and admit she fucked that guy? HA

Haven't seen her picture. She might look just like him.

Straw Man · « **Reply #18 on:** June 24, 2011, 03:29:24 PM »

that dude just guaranteed he'll never get laid in that town again

tonymctones · « **Reply #19 on:** June 24, 2011, 07:21:56 PM »

terrible thing she did as well but the courts are a-ok with that...sad situation all around...

Straw Man · « **Reply #20 on:** June 24, 2011, 09:36:21 PM »

Quote from: tonymctones on June 24, 2011, 07:21:56 PM

terrible thing she did as well but the courts are a-ok with that...sad situation all around...

if that fat tub wants a kid then all he has to do is find some woman who actually wants to have his child

tu_holmes · « **Reply #21 on:** June 25, 2011, 05:19:29 AM »

Quote from: Straw Man on June 24, 2011, 09:36:21 PM

if that fat tub wants a kid then all he has to do is find some woman who actually wants to have his child

Maybe he did. The chick must have liked him enough to fuck him.

Maybe they talked originally and she was ok with it. Then he up and aborted it anyway... In this bullshit society a man has zero rights to anything related to parenting except the right to have to pay if SHE chooses for him to.

Men are completely fucked.

Straw Man · « **Reply #22 on:** June 25, 2011, 06:58:07 AM »

Quote from: tu_holmes on June 25, 2011, 05:19:29 AM

Maybe he did. The chick must have liked him enough to fuck him.

Maybe they talked originally and she was ok with it. Then he up and aborted it anyway... In this bullshit society a man has zero rights to anything related to parenting except the right to have to pay if SHE chooses for him to.

Men are completely fucked.

lol

yeah everyone know woman have all the advantages in our busllshit society

poor fella just wanted to have a baby

tonymctones · « **Reply #23 on:** June 25, 2011, 07:56:18 AM »

Quote from: Straw Man on June 24, 2011, 09:36:21 PM

if that fat tub wants a kid then all he has to do is find some woman who actually wants to have his child

right........

there is a 99.99% chance they had chance without protection knowing that, SEX WITHOUT PROTECTION LEADS TO PREGNANCY...

sounds like she was ok with getting pregnant at the time...

Straw Man · « **Reply #24 on:** June 25, 2011, 08:14:29 AM »

Quote from: tonymctones on June 25, 2011, 07:56:18 AM

right........

there is a 99.99% chance they had chance without protection knowing that, SEX WITHOUT PROTECTION LEADS TO PREGNANCY...

sounds like she was ok with getting pregnant at the time...

LoL at you pulling odds out of your ass

tubby should find a woman and get married and then have a kid

that's how it's usually done

btw - I think there is a 99.99% chance this guy is a loser and probably a possessive weirdo and when this chick figured out what a moron he was she wanted nothing to do with him or his retarded spawn

she should be given a award for being a great american and not adding another dumbfounded dipshit to our population