Jilted man's abortion billboard ignites free speech debate

[Vanoi]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110606/...tion_billboard

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

I am torn on this issue really. I do believe everyone has the right to free speech here, but i would be pissed if someone did something like this to me and would want the billboard taken down. I guess this to me could amost account to slander or libel.

[Lt.Bradford]

It's libel, at least if what her friends say is true. Either way no court is going to say this is protected by free speech.

[lord o kelly]

Main Entry: li·bel
Pronunciation: 'lI-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Anglo-French, from Latin libellus , diminutive of liber book
1 : COMPLAINT 1 —used esp. in admiralty and divorce cases
2 a : a defamatory statement or representation esp. in the form of written or printed words; specifically : a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt b : the publication of such a libel c : the crime or tort of publishing a libel

It's only libel if it's a misrepresentation of the facts. IF she actually had an abortion then the statement is true and it is not libel. That said, what this guy is doing is wrong but I believe it should still be protected.

It's really just up to the courts to subpoena this woman's medical history to ascertain the truth, if she had an abortion then No not libel, if it was a miscarriage then Yes it should be removed.

[Exarch]

guess there was a reason they're both exes of each other

[chilon]

It's only libel if it's a misrepresentation of the facts. IF she actually had an abortion then the statement is true and it is not libel. That said, what this guy is doing is wrong but I believe it should still be protected.

It's really just up to the courts to subpoena this woman's medical history to ascertain the truth, if she had an abortion then No not libel, if it was a miscarriage then Yes it should be removed.

Actually it is still libel because the man used the phrase "Decided To Not KILL Our Child" with an emphasis on the word "KILL". Therefore it is a misrepresentation of the facts since abortion is not equivalent to "KILL our child". I realize some people have highly subjective opinions that abortion does = killing a child but that is a very arbitrary opinion which is neither scientific nor legal fact.

Had the man simply used the word "abortion" instead of trying to place emphasis on the "KILL our child" part then you would be correct and it wouldn't be libel. However, even if she had an abortion and not a miscarriage she did not "KILL our child" which has connotations of a woman murdering a newborn infant. That phrase is very slanted and has reputation harming implications which basically constitute a misrepresentation of the facts.

If I was on the jury, based on this evidence and the legal standard of libel, I would definitely say the man is guilty of libel.

Free speech must be uninhibited, even if it offends the sensibilities of others.

No. Free speech is never and should never be "uninhibited". That is why you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded public location if there is none. That is why companies are not allowed to blatantly lie when selling their products (for instance McDonalds cannot claim their burgers cause people to lose weight).

The idea that all speech should be uninhibited is fairly naive.

[HissingNewt]

but that is a very arbitrary opinion which is neither scientific nor legal fact.

There are cases where unborn children are counted as a second count of murder/manslaughter in courts, so they actually do legally recognize them as people that can be killed by their mothers.

[Sir Winston Churchill]

My policy is, you're free to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't directly harm someone else.

Which is why this is wrong.

[wilpuri]

My policy is, you're free to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't directly harm someone else.

Which is why this is wrong.

Exactly, which is why abortion is wrong.

[Nationalist_Cause]

My policy is, you're free to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't directly harm someone else.

Which is why this is wrong.

No. This isn't directly harming another person. It may be altering her "reputation" in the minds of others, but I can't make a connection between that and direct harm.

[Last Roman]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110606/...tion_billboard



I am torn on this issue really. I do believe everyone has the right to free speech here, but i would be pissed if someone did something like this to me and would want the billboard taken down. I guess this to me could amost account to slander or libel.

This isn't free speech. This is some guy clearly violating someone's right to privacy. She couldn't get him on libel if she actually did get an abortion, but she could easily get him on other things.

[Sher Khan]

I don't see how there's a case if the mother (nor the father beyond the picture) was identified on the billboard. Did it call her out by name? Did he put up his name?

[Lord Zhang Ku]

It shows his person and the outline of the possible infant. However, this might have caused those who knew the couple to react negatively towards the ex-girlfriend.

[Nationalist_Cause]

I guess this to me could amost account to slander or libel.

The topic of slander and libel is an interesting one. When one is talking about the evils of slander, they are really talking about the danger it poses to one's own "reputation." But what is a reputation? It is the aggregate of people's opinions about a particular person or group of people. This is a nebulous area to pass legislation on or to somehow regulate.

I think what the guy did is distasteful, but I think he has every right to rent a billboard to say whatever he likes so long as the person leasing the billboard finds it acceptable. Free speech must be uninhibited, even if it offends the sensibilities of others.

[Last Roman]

The topic of slander and libel is an interesting one. When one is talking about the evils of slander, they are really talking about the danger it poses to one's own "reputation." But what is a reputation? It is the aggregate of people's opinions about a particular person or group of people. This is a nebulous area to pass legislation on or to somehow regulate.

I think what the guy did is distasteful, but I think he has every right to rent a billboard to say whatever he likes so long as the person leasing the billboard finds it acceptable. Free speech must be uninhibited, even if it offends the sensibilities of others.

And what about the right to privacy? What happens when the two collide, as they did in this case? Freedom of speech refers to the public sphere, this was clearly not in the public sphere.

[Sher Khan]

I wonder what's the legal precedent for false light/libel cases based on inference rather than direct naming of the plaintiff. Also, in either case I suppose the truth of the matter of abortion vs. miscarriage would have to be proved first.

[the_mango55]

This billboard doesn't have a photo of her nor mention her name. Don't see the crime.

[Seether]

This billboard doesn't have a photo of her nor mention her name. Don't see the crime.

In fact, outside of those who personally knew they were a couple, nobody would have known who the man's girlfriend was from that billboard. Now that she is exploring legal options, everybody is going to know who she is. I think that if she hadn't resorted to legal tactics, it would have went away quicker and not affected her as much as it will now.

[chamaeleo]

This billboard doesn't have a photo of her nor mention her name. Don't see the crime.

Alamogordo, NM, 2010 Population: 30,403. 2-3 Churches on every block.

http://www.cubitplanning.com/city/23...010-population

Location: middle of the friggin desert. A truly bleak place, but don't drive through too quickly because it's also a notorious speedtrap...

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=alamog...N&hl=en&tab=wl

A random guy's forum rant, pretty accurate from what I've seen/heard:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"The town too sick to die" (as this native calls it)
Alamogordo is one of the most boring places in the state! It has about as much culture as a container of yogurt. As for entertainment, I think they still sell tee shirts that say "I can't decide whether to commit suicide or go bowling". It was acutally a much more "civilized, fun place in the 50's and 60's. There were three movie theatres and two drive-ins. Now there is one theatre in a broke-down almost empty mall and there are over 80 churches and huge billboards on each end of town that warn:"JESUS IS LORD OVER ALAMOGORDO". I kid you not! So if you're idea of fun is burning some Harry Potter books or protesting a gay bookstore, then Alamogordo is right up your alley. Otherwise, steer-clear! It's a truly un-Christian, hateful place.

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/new-m...#ixzz1ObRgHUDC

I imagine there's more locals who know the guy by name, than not...and given the rate at which rumors fly under such circumstances (tiny, isolated, Conservative, religious bumkin town) I wonder whether the community will tolerate her presence much longer. Abortion vs miscarriage, at this point, is irrelevant. The damage is already done.

[mp0295]

This billboard doesn't have a photo of her nor mention her name. Don't see the crime.

[Roloc]

Some random girl trying to get some money out of an non-existant problem.