We read:
"A New Mexico man lashed out at his ex-girlfriend by spending $1,300 on a highway billboard with the text: 'This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!'
The billboard shows a picture of Greg A. Fultz, 35, holding the outline of an infant.
The controversial billboard has touched off a court battle over free speech and privacy rights, especially when it comes to the hot-button issue of abortion.
Mr Fultz's ex-girlfriend, Nani Lawrence, took him to court for harassment and violation of privacy. Domestic court hearing commissioner Darrell Brantley recommended the billboard be removed by June 16.
But Mr Fultz's attorney argues the order violates his client's free speech rights.
Ms Lawrence's friends say she had a miscarriage, not an abortion.
Mr Fultz told KOAT-7 he doesn't know how the child died. He said: 'But if it was abortion, then my purpose is to try to prevent this from happening to someone else'.
Source
The Left never stop trying to suppress anti-abortion speech -- though the personal element in this makes it a bit different. The billboard doesn't identify the woman, though.
15 comments:
If this guy truly had moral principles, he would have more respect for his ex-girlfriend as a human being by first making quite sure it was an induced abortion rather than a natural miscarriage.
His ex-girlfreind is a murderer and is probibly a tree hugger granola muncher
You know her then Spur? Was she also your ex-girlfiend?
Am I wrong because I thought that was a picture of the ex-girlfriend on the billboard?
But seriously, although I agree with the idea that abortion is murder, I also belive in honesty. He admits he doesn't know what happened to the baby, yet accuses her publicly. That is wrong. Very wrong.
This is a good idea, but if he doesn't know she had an abortion, it's wrong and quite possibly illegal.
This is a good idea, but if he doesn't know she had an abortion, it's wrong and quite possibly illegal.
Ah.... but the woman's lawyer admits that she didn't know whether the billboard was about her. As you can see, the woman is not mentioned on the billboard.
The lawyer went on to say, "Freedom of privacy is very much a part of the Constitution as well."
Oh really? Where is the "freedom of privacy" written in the Constitution?
The woman is not identified on the billboard. There is no direct intent to cause emotional distress. We just went through this with the Westboro Baptist ruling.
This guy may be revolting. His speech may be offensive.
It also appears to be protected.
It not only appears to be protected speech. It is. His stance against abortion is his "political/religious opinion", and as such, is protected. The girlfriend has no claim to make since she's not mentioned in the ad.
Firstly - I say it is very poor form to split the infinitive. The verb used is 'to kill' and the text should have read, 'decided not to kill our child'. Indeed, since you don't actually have to decide to not kill something which is alive it would have been better anyway.
Seconf, I also say it is very poor form accusing someone of something that you don't know they did.
Lastly, while the expression is likely protected I am not thrilled that a statement that is neither objectively nor subjectively either true or even believed will be used to test free speech rights.
Annon 2:41 abortion is legailzed murder
It is a clever and powerful message. I do think it would have been best for him to know the facts first. Could backfire.
That being said, at least it is calling attention to what is true - abortion the is murder of a human life for one's personal convenience- no question. Interesting that abortion is the single most selfish action possible and would run 100% counter to Jesus's single most selfless action possible.
I'm thinking slander is possible from this IF she didn't abort AND others were able to figure out who he was talking about. But it's a tough one. There's a reason famous people go to England to sue for slander...
As for abortion being murder...don't like 'um, don't have one. Worried your GF/wife/daughter will get one and deprive you of a lil' bundle of joy...get a GF/wife/daughter that shares your beleifs. That way you can leave those of us that don't worship your invisible friend alone.
I just wish the rabid anti-abortionists (who just seem to be seeking a 'cause célèbre') would appear just as concerned about disadvantaged children AFTER they were born as much as when they were fetuses.
Or merely a clump of embryonic cells with as much consciousness as an appendix. Nature (or God) expels plenty of fetuses as a matter of course, or lets them be born dead!
Anon 2:41 - What makes you think pro-life people don't care about "disadvantaged"?
Or are you trying to imply that caring for them would include killing them before they are born?
3:52 AM Why don't you read the actual wording of the comment to which you refer, and then you wouldn't need to ask the questions you have.
Post a Comment