Free Speech vs Privacy

[Connie]

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

What say you?

[Jennarator]

Very interesting. So much to discuss about this, I don't know where to start. I wish I was good at writing.

I know the point of the was freedom of speech vs. privacy, but wow, this poor dad didn't even have a chance to save this unborn child. (Unless it really was a miscarrage.) If if it was an abortion, then I see what the dad did as fine. He didn't put any names on the bilboard (as far as I could tell.) So yeah, fine. (At least that is my first response or gut reply.)

[MarginOfError]

Very interesting. So much to discuss about this, I don't know where to start. I wish I was good at writing.

I know the point of the was freedom of speech vs. privacy, but wow, this poor dad didn't even have a chance to save this unborn child. (Unless it really was a miscarrage.) If if it was an abortion, then I see what the dad did as fine. He didn't put any names on the bilboard (as far as I could tell.) So yeah, fine. (At least that is my first response or gut reply.)

But as I understand it, legally, the father has no strict right to be involved in the decision of whether or not a fetus is aborted. That decision lies solely with the person who carries the child. Whether that is just or not can be debated endlessly, but that standard does seem to be legally convenient.

So, removing fathers' rights from the equation, does he have a right to post a billboard that implicates her for doing something he believes to be true? Should he have tried to confirm the veracity of his claim?

Does it make a difference if his claim is true or false? Specifically, if his claim is false and it was actually a miscarriage, should he be held liable for defamation? Of does the fact that the billboard was vague let him off the hook?

There are a lot of answers I don't have in this situation, and I'll leave it to the lawyers to figure out. However, I do know that a guy that would do this is a creep and ought to be castrated before he has the chance to further infect the gene pool.

[Jennarator]

II understand the legal thing, just saying that seems wrong. What if he wanted to raise the child.

I agree it is vengeful and I wouldn't want someone that spiteful raising my child, but I would think legally he can post it....unless he put a name on it.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Jennarator

[Vort]

Does it make a difference if his claim is true or false? Specifically, if his claim is false and it was actually a miscarriage, should he be held liable for defamation?

How is it defamation if abortion is legal? It's like accusing someone of being homosexual. Can you sue for defamation for such a claim?

The fact he didn't name the woman involved also seems to have bearing on this.

However, I do know that a guy that would do this is a creep and ought to be castrated before he has the chance to further infect the gene pool.

I assume you're engaging in hyperbole. Given that he's not the one who killed the baby, I think it would be more approriate to "fix" the woman involved.

But I agree, it was ungallant on his part to expose her to open shame. He should be held morally responsible for his actions. But he is a product of his society, and it is a sick, twisted, perverted society, so we shouldn't be surprised at this as a result. Singling him out for "castration", literal or otherwise, misses the root of the problem.

I daresay if ungallant actions were castration-worthy, the human race would cease to exist in a generation.

[MarginOfError]

How is it defamation if abortion is legal? It's like accusing someone of being homosexual. Can you sue for defamation for such a claim?

I'm not sure, actually. But I would imagine that some other factors would come into play. For example, if the abortion were spontaneous (miscarriage), and her reputation in her social spheres was damaged because of his false accusation (let's say for purposes of illustration that she's catholic and now her entire congregation is shunning her based on his false claims), does that qualify as defamation of character, or some similar idea?

In my mind, the legality of the abortion is less important than the reality of it having occurred.

The fact he didn't name the woman involved also seems to have bearing on this.

I agree with this, and suspect that the lack of explicit identification is what will shield him from legal recourse.

I assume you're engaging in hyperbole. Given that he's not the one who killed the baby, I think it would be more approriate to "fix" the woman involved.

It isn't confirmed that she had an abortion. Barring that crucial piece of information, I'm unwilling to pass judgment on whether or not she should be fixed.

But I agree, it was ungallant on his part to expose her to open shame. He should be held morally responsible for his actions. But he is a product of his society, and it is a sick, twisted, perverted society, so we shouldn't be surprised at this as a result. Singling him out for "castration", literal or otherwise, misses the root of the problem.

I think you might underhyperbolize almost as much as I hyperbolize. Ungallant is one thing, but spending significant sums of money to publicly shame and humiliate an ex is above and beyond the call of the ungallant.

I daresay if ungallant actions were castration-worthy, the human race would cease to exist in a generation.

I'd be inclined to agree with you if this man's actions were the product of a fit of acute rage. But to see this through required an abnormal callousness as such billboards don't go up in a matter of minutes. He had plenty of time to think better of his actions and still proceeded to be a jerk. And then went on to defend his creep actions instead of admitting any kind of fault. I would guess that the majority of ungallant actions fail to reach such extremes as this.

[Vort]

I'd be inclined to agree with you if this man's actions were the product of a fit of acute rage. But to see this through required an abnormal callousness as such billboards don't go up in a matter of minutes. He had plenty of time to think better of his actions and still proceeded to be a jerk. And then went on to defend his creep actions instead of admitting any kind of fault. I would guess that the majority of ungallant actions fail to reach such extremes as this.

You say you cannot pass judgment on the young woman because you don't know the specifics of her situation. By the same token, you do not know the nature of their relationship or breakup. My brother was treated abominably by a former wife and falsely accused of unspeakable actions against their daughter, which was only disallowed when the woman admitted under examination that she fabricated the charges.

In such a situation, seemingly extreme overreactions such as the above suddenly don't seem quite as extreme. You do not know how badly mistreated this man may have been by his ex-girlfriend or what exactly precipitated his billboard action. If you knew the whole situation, you just might be inclined to cut him significantly more slack. (Btw, my brother did nothing to "get back at" his then-wife for her vicious slander. Not even billboards.)

[Just_A_Guy]

Most defamation statutes don't hinge on whether the defamer accused the defamed of "illegal" behavior. They hinge on whether the defamer's action exposed the defamed to public "hatred, contempt, or ridicule".

The odd thing here (well, one of the odd things) is that if she sues, her lawyer will be in the curious position of saying "this exposed her to ridicule--not by me, mark you, or you, the enlightened jury, or the majority of our society, which acknowledges the propriety of abortion in at least some cases; but by a segment of social cretins who think differently than us".

I think the safer argument might actually be that he defamed her--not by claiming she had an abortion, but by claiming she was pregnant out of wedlock at all. There's still (ancient) case law on the books about impugning the chastity of women, at least in some states.

[MarginOfError]

You say you cannot pass judgment on the young woman because you don't know the specifics of her situation. By the same token, you do not know the nature of their relationship or breakup. My brother was treated abominably by a former wife and falsely accused of unspeakable actions against their daughter, which was only disallowed when the woman admitted under examination that she fabricated the charges.

In such a situation, seemingly extreme overreactions such as the above suddenly don't seem quite as extreme. You do not know how badly mistreated this man may have been by his ex-girlfriend or what exactly precipitated his billboard action. If you knew the whole situation, you just might be inclined to cut him significantly more slack. (Btw, my brother did nothing to "get back at" his then-wife for her vicious slander. Not even billboards.)

No. The action was inappropriate no matter how bad the break up. You'll have a really hard time convincing me that a person is ever justified to seek to publicly humiliate another person*, regardless of how bad the break up was.

* Excepting some obvious caveats, such as when a person has made their life decisions a matter of public record.

[Guest tbaird22]

No one is saying the action is appropriate or justified. Just that he as an American has the right to do it.

[prophetofdoom]

I have to side with free speech on this one. He didn't name the woman or put her face up there for all to see. I don't think we need thought police going around and censoring everything that is distasteful. OF course, I think it is wrong for him to put a billboard up though.

[MorningStar]

I'm torn on this one. I think putting up that billboard was morally wrong and it might start an ugly trend. I suppose she could fire back with a billboard about him (which would also be wrong). She could mention her unnamed ex-boyfriend who had a scorching case of Herpes.

[Vort]

Nothing on this billboard personally identifies the woman. She's a whiner. And if she did have an elective abortion, I can't really dredge up any sympathy for her.

Note that the news article refuses to name the girlfriend, as if she's a rape victim or something. You don't suppose the media have already chosen sides in this, do you? Nah. Not our sterling, ethical media.

[LDSJewess]

I had this discussion with an attorney family member and although the father of the unborn child acted in extremily poor taste and is morally wrong to lash out as he did; from a legal standpoint he was neither guilty of defamation of charactor (assuming the abortion occurred and it is the truth), nor does it legally infringe on privacy because obviously the abortion was made known to the father of the unborn child, therefore it was not private knowledge that the abortion occurred.

Now there would be legal liability if the following things had occurred:

1. The Doctor or medical staff involved with performing the abortion disclosed the information since they would have been bound to privacy of the woman's medical procedures. If the women told the finace about the abortion it is one thing, but if he found out from the medical staff, it's another issue alltogether.

2. Had the man mentioned the woman's name on a billboard with intent to cause her emotional harm and she were able to prove how she was damaged emotionally (stress), or if she were fired from her work or suffer a loss of some kind due to his action then she may have grounds for a civil suit against him.

3. The terminology, "Defamation of charactor" suit would not hold up though because since abortions are legal and assuming it is true that she had an abortion, she cannot be defamed for something that she chose to legally do.

4. In some cases if the billboard implied who the person was (for instance if he accused his girlfriend, wife etc: and it was a small community where it is assumed that readers knew who the person was, she still may have a harrassment case.

As my old Jewish granny would have said, Be glad to get rid of him - he's no mensch - he's a schmuck.

Just as a foot note though, my personal belief is that a law should be enacted whereby the father must be notified prior to an abortion. Fathers need to be notified to sign off parental rights in adoption cases, and if the mother has the baby and keeps the child, the father is legally obligated to support the child.

Edited June 8, 2011 by LDSJewess

[Elphaba]

This deranged macho man is obviously suffering from testosterone poisoning, and couldn't stand the fact that he didn't have complete control over this woman, body and soul. Because the law doesn't allow him to beat her for having had he guts to defy him, he found a way to get back at her in a manner that the law does allow.

And if I could afford it, I would say so--fifty feet high.

In other words, my opinion about this man doesn't mean spit--it's only only my opinion, and the fact that I have a right to say it on a billboard does not equate to it being the right thing to do, regardless of who would, or would not, agree with me.

In fact, anyone who would go to such lengths to get back at a person obviously has anger issues, and I'm not being facetious about that. Thus, it's entirely possible she chose to have an abortion so as not to subject the child to an abusive father. Therefore, people who would never have thought such a thing about him had he not taken such drastic measures are now, indeed, thinking it. I really doubt that's what he intended, and it's telling that he did this without realizing that to many, his actions speak louder than the words he's written, regardless of how large the letters.

Elphaba

[Vort]

This deranged macho man is obviously suffering from testosterone poisoning, and couldn't stand the fact that he didn't have complete control over this woman, body and soul. Because the law doesn't allow him to beat her for having had he guts to defy him, he found a way to get back at her in a manner that the law does allow.

And if I could afford it, I would say so--fifty feet high.

In other words, my opinion about this man doesn't mean spit--it's only only my opinion, and the fact that I have a right to say it on a billboard does not equate to it being the right thing to do, regardless of who would, or would not, agree with me.

In fact, anyone who would go to such lengths to get back at a person obviously has anger issues, and I'm not being facetious about that. Thus, it's entirely possible she chose to have an abortion so as not to subject the child to an abusive father. Therefore, people who would never have thought such a thing about him had he not taken such drastic measures are now, indeed, thinking it. I really doubt that's what he intended, and it's telling that he did this without realizing that to many, his actions speak louder than the words he's written, regardless of how large the letters.

Elphaba

I think you're right at least about how it will hurt him. This will come back to bite him much worse than any pain it might cause to his ex-girlfriend. Funny thing about revenge; it often ends up hurting you far worse than your target.

[Just_A_Guy]

In fact, anyone who would go to such lengths to get back at a person obviously has anger issues, and I'm not being facetious about that. Thus, it's entirely possible she chose to have an abortion so as not to subject the child to an abusive father. Therefore, people who would never have thought such a thing about him had he not taken such drastic measures are now, indeed, thinking it. I really doubt that's what he intended, and it's telling that he did this without realizing that to many, his actions speak louder than the words he's written, regardless of how large the letters.

Perhaps I'm getting bogged down in minutae and missing your overall point, Elphaba. But, with all due respect--isn't it possible that he honestly believes that this woman killed his child?

If the Brown family put up billboards condemning O.J. Simpson as a killer, would you say that that behavior automatically made the Brown family unfit to raise Nicole Brown Simpson's minor children?

EDIT: FWIW, the ever-scintillating Eugene Volokh has a post on this here.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[HoosierGuy]

The billboard does not tell who Greg Fultz's girlfriend was but if you are a friend of Geg Fultz then you probably know who his girlfriend was. This is violating her privacy. Also the billboard says "KILL" and an abortion is not a murder or killing. The boyfriend should be punished. Also all those sponsors of that billboard are pro life sponsors. This is nothing but a hit piece on the woman.

[john doe]

The billboard does not tell who Greg Fultz's girlfriend was but if you are a friend of Geg Fultz then you probably know who his girlfriend was. This is violating her privacy. Also the billboard says "KILL" and an abortion is not a murder or killing. The boyfriend should be punished. Also all those sponsors of that billboard are pro life sponsors. This is nothing but a hit piece on the woman.

I think there may be a few people who would argue this point.

[pam]

The billboard does not tell who Greg Fultz's girlfriend was but if you are a friend of Geg Fultz then you probably know who his girlfriend was. This is violating her privacy. Also the billboard says "KILL" and an abortion is not a murder or killing. The boyfriend should be punished. Also all those sponsors of that billboard are pro life sponsors. This is nothing but a hit piece on the woman.

Say what??????? What the heck is it then? You are taking the life of a living being..is that not killing? Perhaps not in what many would consider the legal sense..but it is still killing.

HG you've said some pretty...ummm..(thinking of a nice word) interesting things..but this seriously tops it all.

Edited June 8, 2011 by pam

[FunkyTown]

I'm confused.

Libel is when you print misleading statements about someone. That is covered by law.

Truthful statements, or offensive statements, or statements about offensive things, are either covered by free speech laws, hate speech laws and obscenity laws. Is this governed by a hate speech law or obscenity law? If not, then as distasteful as the billboard is, it should be legal.

The ideal resolution for this would be that he is allowed to place that billboard advertisement and his friends contact him and say "Hey... Don't be a jerk." and he feels shame. Legally enforcing propriety by stripping freedom of speech is terrifyingly bad.

[MarginOfError]

Say what??????? What the heck is it then? You are taking the life of a living being..is that not killing? Perhaps not in what many would consider the legal sense..but it is still killing.

HG you've said some pretty...ummm..(thinking of a nice word) interesting things..but this seriously tops it all.

Elaborating on this statement is the following statement published in the June 1972 issue of the Priesthood Bulletin:“The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer.

"As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known, he has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness." Source

By the standard of LDS doctrine, HoosierGuy is right. I won't require that each member of the Church adopt the same personal standard, however.

Many of the statements I see made in this thread assume that he was telling the truth about her abortion. Has that been confirmed at all? I keep bringing it up because the defamation and libel comments hinge on whether the accusation is true or false. If it's true, there's no libel or defamation (or whatever). If it's false, then there is.

Not that it matters. As has been discussed already, by not identifying her directly, he's pretty well shielded himself from legal action.

[john doe]

Many of the statements I see made in this thread assume that he was telling the truth about her abortion. Has that been confirmed at all? I keep bringing it up because the defamation and libel comments hinge on whether the accusation is true or false.

The story I read on the matter indicated that the girlfriend maintains that she miscarried and did not have an abortion. This man does not believe her.

[Just_A_Guy]

By the standard of LDS doctrine, HoosierGuy is right.

He's right that it's not the equivalent of murder. I'm not sure we can grant that it's also not the equivalent of "killing". Cousin of mine is currently serving an LDS mission after having killed several people (ex-Marine who did two tours in Afghanistan).

[MarginOfError]

He's right that it's not the equivalent of murder. I'm not sure we can grant that it's also not the equivalent of "killing". Cousin of mine is currently serving an LDS mission after having killed several people (ex-Marine who did two tours in Afghanistan).

Good catch, and I'll cede the point. Forgive me, Pam, for incorrectly correcting you.