Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard - free speech or invasion of privacy?

[longnecker]

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 a 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.
So is this free speech or an invasions of her privacy??
Here's a link to the complete article on msnbc.com - including an image of the billboard.

[Tracy]

aside from the whole free speech vs invasion of privacy argument....that guy is a total ass

[Kid Lester]

If she had a miscarriage, he's committing libel and defaming her character.

If not, I'd refer to case law in regards to his free speech rights vs. her privacy rights. As a private individual, I don't know what protections she has/doesn't have against somebody broadcasting private information about her if it's in fact true. She may be SOL.

[Kid Lester]

aside from the whole free speech vs invasion of privacy argument....that guy is a total ass

Ladies, this here's Greg Fultz.

Don't trip over yourselves to be next in line.

[Robb]

The billboard doesn't have her name on it or even his name on it and if he wants to do it to help him feel better/vindicated/etc regarding the murder of his potential baby, then so be it. Putting up a billboard doesn't seem as wrong as having one's potential offspring demolished.

The guy does sound like a jerk though:
http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-bo...-her-abortion/

[ScentsyLorien]

I can't imagine why someone wouldn't want to have a child with this guy...

[Joe Walther]

If she had a miscarriage, he's committing libel and defaming her character.

If not, I'd refer to case law in regards to his free speech rights vs. her privacy rights. As a private individual, I don't know what protections she has/doesn't have against somebody broadcasting private information about her if it's in fact true. She may be SOL.

She can, and probably will, sue under the tort of Public Disclosure of a Private Fact--aka invasion of privacy. From the facts I've been able to glean from the court record, she has a very good chance of obtaining a judgment. Collecting on the judgment, of course, is another matter.

Winning a case based on defamation or libel is tough--virtually impossible for public figures--because the plaintiff must prove an intent to defame and that some degree of defamation actually occurred. As well, truth is always a defense to such suits.

However, for non-public figures, it's foolish to sue for defamation or libel when they can sue for the publication of a private fact. And, unlike defamation/libel suits, truth is NOT a defense.

[Robb]

She can, and probably will, sue under the tort of Public Disclosure of a Private Fact--aka invasion of privacy. From the facts I've been able to glean from the court record, she has a very good chance of obtaining a judgment. Collecting on the judgment, of course, is another matter.

Winning a case based on defamation or libel is tough--virtually impossible for public figures--because the plaintiff must prove an intent to defame and that some degree of defamation actually occurred. As well, truth is always a defense to such suits.

However, for non-public figures, it's foolish to sue for defamation or libel when they can sue for the publication of a private fact. And, unlike defamation/libel suits, truth is NOT a defense.

Do you think she can still prove the case without him being named or even her being named? If he's been with 10 women and says that one of them aborted his child on a billboard, how can she prove that she's the one? And how would Joe Smith driving by the billboard know that he is who he is and that he had sex with her at some point?

[Crabby]

It's also possibly a HIPPA violation.

[Joe Walther]

Do you think she can still prove the case without him being named or even her being named? If he's been with 10 women and says that one of them aborted his child on a billboard, how can she prove that she's the one? And how would Joe Smith driving by the billboard know that he is who he is and that he had sex with her at some point?

This is a civil case, not a criminal one. Therefore, there is no need to prove the point beyond a reasonable doubt, only on a preponderance of the evidence, which means, of course, that circumstantial evidence plays a far greater role than it does in a criminal trial.

All a jury has to ponder on the question of identity is "Is it more likely than not" that the plaintiff is the one. Based on everything I've seen in the record--this man's mouth has gotten him into big trouble before this--I can think of at least four ways for her attorney to force this one to an out of court settlement in a hurry.

Although I said earlier that collecting on a judgment is often a lot more difficult than winning one, it does not mean that such a judgment is worthless. Judges issue them for ten years with an automatic renewal for an additional ten years on request.

Depending on the state involved, liens--in the amount legally collectible--on assets apply to both present and all future ones. Oh, and they sit out there calmly compounding at an annual interest rate of about 9.5% on the unpaid balance.

So, a small judgment of say... $20,000 compounding at 9.5% annually will grow to about $45,500 over ten years. Of course, the loser could let it go for another ten years! The point is that up to twenty years is a long time to keep trying to hide stuff from lawyers intent on find it.

And, this defendant does not seem to have the intellectual acuity to tie his shoes, let alone skirt even the dumbest of lawyers.

[Robb]

It's also possibly a HIPPA violation.

Since he isn't the caregiver or involved in her care, it shouldn't be.

Like if I take a photo of a victim at a car accident as a passerby, no HIPAA but if I'm the EMT rendering aid and take the photo and post it then I do violate it.

[HEDDY]

Here is the billboard: