Since we've had a few short discussions of personal freedoms and the like, I give you this gem:
ALAMOGORDO, N.M. (AP) — 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.
OK, ignoring the abortion debate entirely (because she may have just miscarried and the general breakdown will be the "it's wrong" and "it's her choice" and that's a lame discussion these days) and that fact that the fat ugly guy who did this with the Pro-Lifers is an utter douche and should learn to deal, is what he has done within his rights or a violation of his exes rights - or both?
Although he didn't use her name, anyone who knows him probably knows who the woman is, which should be enough to violate her right to privacy and I would argue could be a case of libel - particularly if it wasn't an abortion in the first place, even though it makes me wonder how this man could be that stupid... perhaps it was an induced early delivery due to complications that was killing the child anyway, who knows.
Seems overly suspect and in the end is a good lesson to know the person you are having sex with, just in case. Also, archaic man opinion of having any rights over a woman's body, but it is New Mexico... who knows what they believe down there.