Freedom or Privacy or ?

[layoutshooter]

Interesting case:

Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion 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.






Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard - Yahoo! News

 

[Turtle]

Interesting indeed. The court order to have the billboard removed will be signed, it's just a matter or procedure at this point. The NM Right to Life organization asked to have their endorsement removed, mainly because Fultz created a brand new organization which doesn't even exist called N.A.N.I. - National Association of Needed Information, and put on the billboard that they were a sponsor, except he worded it as "created for N.A.N.I.". Problem is, NANI is also his girlfriend's first name, which invades the privacy of Nani. If he hadn't named her, he'd be fine. But he named her, and charged that she killed their child, which implies either intent or negligence. However, even he admits that he doesn't know whether she had an abortion or, as she has claimed all along, a miscarriage. He has since removed the NANI reference, as well as the NM Right to Life endorsement.

Right now it's a privacy issue, and his right to free speech ends when it infringes on the rights other others (in her case, privacy) but if he pushes the issue too far, it'll become a libel and slander case, and he'll lose unless he can prove she lost the baby to an abortion or to gross negligence which resulted in a miscarriage.

 

[layoutshooter]

How about this? What if she did abort it?

Does the father have any right to protect his offspring? Assuming that he was the donor of 50% of the DNA, that would make it as much his off spring as her's. If he has no right to protect it, does he have a responsibility to support it? Can there be responsibility without rights? Can there be rights without responsibility?

And what about privacy? Roe vs. Wade was based on it. If the government assumes the responsibility of health care, there will be no privacy in medicine. Does that negate it?

 

[Turtle]

How about this? What if she did abort it?

It'll save him from libel and slander, but it still won't get him off the hook for violating her privacy rights.

Does the father have any right to protect his offspring? Assuming that he was the donor of 50% of the DNA, that would make it as much his off spring as her's.

In most cases, yes.

If he has no right to protect it, does he have a responsibility to support it? Can there be responsibility without rights? Can there be rights without responsibility?

Depends, yes, and yes.

And what about privacy? Roe vs. Wade was based on it. If the government assumes the responsibility of health care, there will be no privacy in medicine. Does that negate it?

Does what negate what?

If the government assumes the responsibility, you cannot assume with any certainty that there will be no privacy. That's simply the fear, but there is no guarantee that there will be no privacy. There are plenty of countries with social medicine where privacy is in tact.

 

[layoutshooter]

Well, if there is no responsibility then there are no rights, no rights, no responsibility.

If this is the case, that a man has no rights, then his sole purpose in to donate DNA. If a man cannot have some control over the life of his offspring, well, why then should he assume any responsibility for those he CHOOSES not too?

There MAY be countries with socialize medicine where privacy remains intact. I don't know that I believe that but I guess it is possible.

Privacy, in MY book, requires that 100% of all decisions are made without government interference of any kind in any way shape or form. I am not concerned about what other countries do. This is the United States. Health care is now mandated by force and everything will be to the extreme. We never do anything half way.

 

[cheri1122]

Legally, men have neither rights nor responsibilities concerning a pregnancy - they are not a father until a child is born.
That's a good thing, isn't it? Because how many men want to be held responsible for a child they never meant to create? Birth control isn't 100% effective, and if you can believe it, some women actually lie about it, forcing a permanent connection on someone who doesn't want it.
If your answer is that people shouldn't have sex with people they don't want to raise children with, time for a reality check: they're gonna do it anyhow, just as they always have.

 

[layoutshooter]

Legally, men have neither rights nor responsibilities concerning a pregnancy - they are not a father until a child is born.
That's a good thing, isn't it? Because how many men want to be held responsible for a child they never meant to create? Birth control isn't 100% effective, and if you can believe it, some women actually lie about it, forcing a permanent connection on someone who doesn't want it.
If your answer is that people shouldn't have sex with people they don't want to raise children with, time for a reality check: they're gonna do it anyhow, just as they always have.

I know of NO MAN who would not want to accept responsibility for a child, or if unable too, put it up for adoption.

So, by your rule, then a male can make as many DNA deposits as he chooses and accept no responsibility at all?

Please don't insult me with the "they are going to do it anyway" thing. EVERYONE can, IF THEY CHOOSE TOO, control anything that they want. Including the sex drive. That excuse is one of the main reason so many things are messed up today. The very idea that people are unable to control urges, therefor are not responsible for their actions, is why we are stuck with so many people who accept NO responsibility for their own lives. That excuse is little different that the "devil made me do it" excuse.

If a woman can choose not to accept responsibility for a child, which is what abortion is, refusing to accept the responsibility for ones actions, then a man can do that same and never have to support any child he chooses not too.

Yes, women lie about BC all the time. Some men are pigs. So are just as many women.

 

[AMonger]

It'll save him from libel and slander, but it still won't get him off the hook for violating her privacy rights.

In most cases, yes.

Depends, yes, and yes.

Does what negate what?

If the government assumes the responsibility, you cannot assume with any certainty that there will be no privacy. That's simply the fear, but there is no guarantee that there will be no privacy. There are plenty of countries with social medicine where privacy is in tact.

Privacy would certainly be a change in the pattern of how the feral gummint has administered anything else recently. Look at HIPAA; ostensibly to guarantee privacy but codifies plenty of exceptions for the connected and those with lobbyists,.and for the government, of course.

The CANNED SPAM Act does the same.

 

[Turtle]

Privacy would certainly be a change in the pattern of how the feral gummint has administered anything else recently. Look at HIPAA; ostensibly to guarantee privacy but codifies plenty of exceptions for the connected and those with lobbyists,.and for the government, of course.

The CANNED SPAM Act does the same.

Oh, I agree that the likelihood that privacy will be lost is great, but it's still not a lock.

 

[cheri1122]

I know of NO MAN who would not want to accept responsibility for a child, or if unable too, put it up for adoption.

Thousands of women supporting kids without help from the 'father' are rolling their eyes at that, along with me. LOTS of so called 'men' don't want the responsibility of fatherhood.

So, by your rule, then a male can make as many DNA deposits as he chooses and accept no responsibility at all?

My rule? Nope, they don't let me make any laws. Men have always had the ability to simply walk away from an unwanted pregnancy, as far too many do.

Please don't insult me with the "they are going to do it anyway" thing. EVERYONE can, IF THEY CHOOSE TOO, control anything that they want. Including the sex drive. That excuse is one of the main reason so many things are messed up today. The very idea that people are unable to control urges, therefor are not responsible for their actions, is why we are stuck with so many people who accept NO responsibility for their own lives. That excuse is little different that the "devil made me do it" excuse.

I think you're insulting me - I didn't say anything about being unable to control the urge - I said that people will continue to have sex with people they may or may not [or think they may, or actually did, for awhile, but changed their minds] wish to raise children with. And many of those people will believe they were being responsible in using birth control, only to find that A: it's not 100% effective, or B: other people aren't 100% trustworthy.
If you happen to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong, that's fine - but it's a moral decision, and others believe differently.

If a woman can choose not to accept responsibility for a child, which is what abortion is, refusing to accept the responsibility for ones actions, then a man can do that same and never have to support any child he chooses not too.
Like I said, that's hardly a newsflash - men have been not supporting their kids for as long as kids have been around.

Yes, women lie about BC all the time. Some men are pigs. So are just as many women.
Yep. In an ideal world the pigs would mate with each other, but in the real world, they sometimes take advantage of the opposite sex. But forcing pregnancy and/or parenthood on anyone is not a good idea, especially for the children who will inevitably suffer the consequences of being 'unwanted'.
Every child deserves to be wanted.

 

[LDB]

Thousands of women were not with men, they were with males. Men take responsibility, males don't. Joe is correct. That responsibility should begin at conception since that is when life begins. That it doesn't is a sign of our shortcoming as a society.

 

[cheri1122]

Whether I agree on when life begins or not, it's also a major shortcoming to rationalize the suffering of so many of our people [mostly women and children], because everyone doesn't act as responsible as they should. Sadly, everyone never will.
When every child born is wanted, welcomed, and cherished, [preferably by one parent of each gender, but we have to deal with reality], we will be a much better society.