The news story is here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/23/judge-tells-boyfriend-to-remove-abortion-billboard/
Men are denied any legal say in the decision to abort their offspring. Now they are being denied any legal say about whether they are happy about that.
Let us be clear: if the woman did not have an abortion, the sign itself is a heinous affront to her rights.
But if she did have an abortion, forcing him to take down the sign contorts the First Amendement beyond all recognition.
I am beginning to feel that I no longer recognize this country we live in.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
P.S. I think what the ex-boyfriend did here probably wasn't motivated by a charitable impulse. He's obviously angry, and not a sympathetic figure. But there are much larger issues here. The Supreme Court recently voted 8-1 to allow the creeps who protested military funerals to continue. This clearly violates the first amendment if, in fact, she had an abortion.
Let us count the rights we've lost since feminism came to town:
- The right to freedom of association
- The right to being safe from unreasonable search and seizure
- The right to private property
- The right to due process of law
- The right to keep and bear arms (viz Lautenberg amendment)
- The right to safety from involuntary servitude
and now the right to free speech.
Ain't feminism grand?
H Pierce,
"Fultz's ex-girlfriend has taken him to court for harassment and violation of privacy".
I'm not an attorney so I am unable to comment on the legal claims above especially if she did not have an abortion. Good additional comment about the SC allowing those creeps to protest funerals. I find it repulsive that they can protest a funeral in such a way and I sense double standards in the interpretation of the law.
Even if she did have an abortion I'm torn on this one as to the appropriateness and/or right of someone to put up such a billboard.
Atlas
BTW, she is hideous.
If she did in fact have an abortion, this would be very similar to the case (can't recall the exact names involved) from before the American Revolution, where colonial judges ruled - and this is still valid under common law - that, by definition, nothing can be slander or libel if it is demonstrably true. This case was part of the basis for including freedom of the press in the first amendment.
The judge has power over the boyfriend but not others. We could just pick up where he left off. Even better if done with an anonymous corporation.
Question for the judge in this case: is the ex-boyfriend allowed to publicly state he's not happy his ex-lover aborted what would have been his son or daughter? And if so, what's the difference between proclaiming it verbally and proclaiming it on a billboard?
This is ridiculous. He has every right to that billboard.
The First Amendment does not list any exceptions.
What I find ironic about this case is that the woman files a petition with the court alleging harassment and "violation of privacy" in a court of public record.
Considering that the billboard does not contain her likeness in anyway or her name, I think it is absurd the court ordered Fultz to take the sign down.
Fultz says he intends to fight and I hope he does. I hope the appellate courts reverse.
The billboard contains a person's photo. That person's photo is the boyfriend's own photo?
In that case he has every right, obviously.
It is the woman's photo? Then maybe she can veto the photo's use.
This is ridiculous. A link to the judge's decision would be great (I'm going to look for it now) but I have no clue how he arrived at that opinion based on the recent Phelps case and long-standing, well understood concepts of libel/slander.
I hope this man appeals and wins, but if he doesn't, Anon @ 2:13 is absolutely right; I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult for a person/people to pass this around to the various blogs, get some donors, and run an ad buy. Heck, that person/those people could even contact the man himself (through his lawyer, perhaps) and work something out that way.
This is absolutely abhorrent to me and based on what I understand this amounts to nothing less than a grave miscarriage of justice. Hope he gets his legal fees paid by this "woman" when this is all said and done.
I don't think it's that clear cut.
I mean don't you usually need permission from people to put their likeness up on a billboard?
Slothy,
Her image was never on the billboard. Only his, and a black outline of a baby. The only real argument here, I can see, is that the name of the organization he created, spells out his ex's name (but he spells out the words, he doesn't just use the initials).
The only real issue here is if she had a miscarriage or an abortion. If it was indeed a miscarriage, then he should take it down. If she had an abortion, then he is stating the truth, and the judge is completely in the wrong.
Really, what we need is proof one way or the other as to if she had a miscarriage or an abortion.
Post a Comment