Free speech v. Privacy?

[BrianFromWA]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...014_apusabortionbillboard.html?prmid=obinsite

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 invoked the U.S. Supreme Court decision from earlier this year concerning the Westboro Baptist Church, which is known for its anti-gay protests at military funerals and other high-profile events. He believes the high court's decision to allow the protests, as hurtful as they are, is grounds for his client to put up the abortion billboard.

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

 

[BrianFromWA]

Here's the billboard.

I'm trying to understand how it's enough an invasion of privacy to strike down someone's free speech, when the person whose privacy is in question isn't named.

BTW, the fact that that dude was able to get someone pregnant should give a lot of guys hope.

 

[barfo]

I'd guess the fetus saw what it was in for and opted for suicide.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

I'm in favor of the woman's right to choose...

But I also think the father has every right to be pissed off and talk about why he's pissed off.

 

[Denny Crane]

My take is the guy has the right to put up the billboard, but she has the right to sue him and she should win.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Unless there is some privacy statute regarding the right for abortion victime to not have their name or image displayed, I think he's fine, criminally/civilly wise. However, likr previously posted, he may end up on the wrong end of a civil suite anyway.

 

[Natebishop3]

My take is the guy has the right to put up the billboard, but she has the right to sue him and she should win.

If he has the right to put up the billboard, why should she win? It sets a bad precedent when someone can sue someone else for insinuations... He didn't even mention her by name on the billboard. This sounds like the lawsuit where the ex-boyfriend of that singer Adele is suing her because she's made a bunch of money off songs that she supposedly wrote about her relationship with him. He believes he should get royalties for inspiring the songs. Fucking terrible. I can't believe what the world is coming to.

 

[Mediocre Man]

I don't believe in abortion, but I also don't think anyone has the right to tell a woman she can't have one. That being said, where are the fathers rights in all of this? He has every right to that child as she does, and for her to do that without his permission should be illegal. I also love how her lawyers are whining about invasion of provacy, and that her personal life isn't for the rest of the world to see. So does this go for actors and athletes as well?

 

[BrianFromWA]

Maybe it should be, but it isn't yet.

As far as the privacy, that's my biggest question. If she's not identified, what place is it of hers to say anything? Much less sue?

 

[Denny Crane]

If he has the right to put up the billboard, why should she win? It sets a bad precedent when someone can sue someone else for insinuations... He didn't even mention her by name on the billboard. This sounds like the lawsuit where the ex-boyfriend of that singer Adele is suing her because she's made a bunch of money off songs that she supposedly wrote about her relationship with him. He believes he should get royalties for inspiring the songs. Fucking terrible. I can't believe what the world is coming to.

Because he's inviting some lunatic psycho type to attack her.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

... That being said, where are the fathers rights in all of this?

A perfect question, MM.

I wonder if he can sue on behalf of his murdered child?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I don't believe in abortion, but I also don't think anyone has the right to tell a woman she can't have one. That being said, where are the fathers rights in all of this? He has every right to that child as she does, and for her to do that without his permission should be illegal.

In the eyes of the law, the fetus isn't viewed as a child; it's no more than a part of the woman's body until it is born. The fact that he contributed to its conception is considered irrelevant. As such, the would-be father has as much legal influence over fate of the fetus as he would over a manicure or hairstyle he had paid for--none.

 

[maxiep]

She wasn't named, so I fail to see the issue. It would seem that he would have caused her more distress if he would have gone to the local truck stops and written on the bathroom walls, "For a good time, call..." with her name and number.

 

[Mediocre Man]

In the eyes of the law, the fetus isn't viewed as a child; it's no more than a part of the woman's body until it is born. The fact that he contributed to its conception is considered irrelevant. As such, the would-be father has as much legal influence over fate of the fetus as he would over a manicure or hairstyle he had paid for--none.

Grumble....grrr, grumble, F'n liberals

 

[julius]

I wonder if those who are "what about the rights of the father" get together and complain/bitch about the same fathers who are dead beat dads and have nothing to do with their children.

 

[Mediocre Man]

I think all of those fathers should be in prison if they don't pay. Any retirement or social security benefits they have earned in their lifetime should immediately go to the mother.

Why would that even be related?

 

[julius]

I think all of those fathers should be in prison if they don't pay. Any retirement or social security benefits they have earned in their lifetime should immediately go to the mother.

Why would that even be related?

because it seems some people (not you necessarily) are more interested in what happens before the baby is born, then after.

 

[maxiep]

I wonder if those who are "what about the rights of the father" get together and complain/bitch about the same fathers who are dead beat dads and have nothing to do with their children.

As a father, my revulsion for those people has no bottom. How you could create life and then not share in the responsibility for it is the lowest of the low.

 

[porkchopexpress]

She wasn't named, so I fail to see the issue. It would seem that he would have caused her more distress if he would have gone to the local truck stops and written on the bathroom walls, "For a good time, call..." with her name and number.

Apparently the "sponsor" N.A.N.I. was created by this guy and just so happens to spell the woman's first name. It has since been removed. Another sponsor (not sure which) also asked to be removed when he admitted that he didn't even know if she had an abortion or if it was a miscarriage.

 

[BrianFromWA]

regardless of how dumb this is (and I'm granting that point), if Westboro can picket a funeral spouting that the soldier died b/c God hates a certain behavior, why is this guy's speech any less free?

 

[Paxil]

In the eyes of the law, the fetus isn't viewed as a child; it's no more than a part of the woman's body until it is born. The fact that he contributed to its conception is considered irrelevant. As such, the would-be father has as much legal influence over fate of the fetus as he would over a manicure or hairstyle he had paid for--none.

That may be how law is interpeted... but is it right? Interesting topic for sure. Personally, while I regonize a women's right to choose... it isn't a choice I could ever recommend if I had input.

Also... in some states if you kill a pregnant women you can be charged with murder twice right? Seems to recognize that it isn't just another part of her body.

 

[PapaG]

Here's the billboard.

I'm trying to understand how it's enough an invasion of privacy to strike down someone's free speech, when the person whose privacy is in question isn't named.

BTW, the fact that that dude was able to get someone pregnant should give a lot of guys hope.

Haha! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzing!

 

[PapaG]

In the eyes of the law, the fetus isn't viewed as a child; it's no more than a part of the woman's body until it is born. The fact that he contributed to its conception is considered irrelevant. As such, the would-be father has as much legal influence over fate of the fetus as he would over a manicure or hairstyle he had paid for--none.

That's not true. If you kill a pregnant mother, you can be charged with a double-homicide.

Remember Scott Peterson? He was convicted of double-homicide.

 

[porkchopexpress]

That's not true. If you kill a pregnant mother, you can be charged with a double-homicide.

Remember Scott Peterson? He was convicted of double-homicide.

She was 8 month's pregnant. You can't abort an 8 month old fetus. But, I haven't read the law, so I don't know if they could charge him w/ murder if she was say, 1 month pregnant.

 

[Mediocre Man]

That's not true. If you kill a pregnant mother, you can be charged with a double-homicide.

Remember Scott Peterson? He was convicted of double-homicide.

Is this by state? Because I always thought the law stated something about a life being able to support itslef (breathing on it's own and such) If a killer charged with double murder if he stabs a mother and an unborn baby dies, why wouldn't a mother having an abortion also be considered murder by law?

I am not trying to get into a debate over abortion being murder or not, I am just trying to understand what the difference is?

 

[Mediocre Man]

She was 8 month's pregnant. You can't abort an 8 month old fetus. But, I haven't read the law, so I don't know if they could charge him w/ murder if she was say, 1 month pregnant.

1 month or 8 months, she is still pregnant. Is there a clear cut day, hour or second that it becomes illegal? If someone stabs a baby through the mothers stomach right before birth, instead of stabbing the baby right after birth, is there a difference?

 

[porkchopexpress]

1 month or 8 months, she is still pregnant. Is there a clear cut day, hour or second that it becomes illegal? If someone stabs a baby through the mothers stomach right before birth, instead of stabbing the baby right after birth, is there a difference?

That was my point, I don't know. For abortion, there is a point where you can no longer get one. Not sure when it is though.

 

[Denny Crane]

That was my point, I don't know. For abortion, there is a point where you can no longer get one. Not sure when it is though.

Read Roe v Wade, it's not hard to understand it...

Basically, the court came up with trimesters. In the first three months, the state has no compelling interest to stop an abortion. The state has some interest in the 2nd trimester, and a lot of interest in the 3rd.

Their reasoning is based upon the viability of the baby outside the womb. And as pro choice as I am, it is a baby from conception to me, just for it's unique human DNA.

I'm not sure about the double homicide laws, but I don't see any reason for them not to have effect from day 1. Nobody but a doctor and the woman have a right to take the life.

 

[Paxil]

I'm not sure about the double homicide laws

I think it varies from state to state... in California I think yes... in Oregon I think no.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think it varies from state to state... in California I think yes... in Oregon I think no.

Yeah, I forgot to write in my previous post that murder laws are almost exclusively the purview of the states. Federal murder trials are RARE.