Tuesday, June 07, 2011

Ex-Boyfriend Shows Why He's An Ex After Posting Odious Abortion Billboard

There was a time when the personal stayed personal and if a boyfriend had a disagreement with his girlfriend over whether to have children, this stayed private. It didn't go up on a billboard for all the world to see.
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 attorney is focusing on the privacy rights and Fultz claims that this is a free speech right.

Fultz has also turned this into an abortion issue, but it's not clear that an abortion even took place. The woman's friends claim that no abortion took place; this was a miscarriage, which is something that a significant percentage of all women who get pregnant will endure. It's an extremely disappointing and emotional situation and sometimes requires a medical procedure to remove the failed fetus.

What this shows is that Fultz is a piece of work and the woman was justified to turn him into an ex-boyfriend. A judge has already ruled that the billboard should come down. Fultz's lawyer claims that Fultz has a free speech right to post the billboard, and cites to the recent Westboro decision at the US Sup. Ct., but that's a gross misreading seeing that the Supreme Court limited that decision to only the Westboro situation at issue.

No comments: