Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights

Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheHeretic -> Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/6/2011 8:15:06 PM)
quote: 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. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110606/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_billboard Apparently, this couple had a rather nasty-breakup. Whatever may have brought them to this, I think the question of whether free speech trumps privacy, is a good one.

pahunkboy -> RE: Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/6/2011 8:18:59 PM)
....she has no case.

DarkSteven -> RE: Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/6/2011 8:30:30 PM)
Well, obviously he'll never get a date again. Idiot. As I understood it, "privacy" is part of the relationship between an individual and the government, not between private parties. But the harassment claim is legit, and I'd expect something about being a public nuisance, etc. Interestingly, because abortion is legal, he is not liable for libel. If it were illegal, he would be.

Owner59 -> RE: Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/6/2011 8:40:38 PM)
What a fuck`n loser.That`s probably not even on his radar. There`s a guy in the next town with a hand painted billboard on his lawn, decrying the court system for taking his kids and making him pay child support. He lawn also has tons of rotting junk and garbage about. Talk about a fuck`n loser.That guy will go to his grave playing the victim. So will this loser.If I was a member of that girls family,he`d have more to worry about besides his right to free speech.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/6/2011 8:47:20 PM)
I wonder if they could try to get him for a "HIPA" (I think that is the correct acronym for medical privacy rules) violation? OK, who are the medical people around here? taz?

thishereboi -> RE: Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/6/2011 8:47:55 PM)
HIPAA edited to add: and I am not sure this would fall under that one.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/6/2011 8:49:39 PM)
ty for straightening out the acronym boi.

WyldHrt -> RE: Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/6/2011 8:54:32 PM)
quote: I wonder if they could try to get him for a "HIPA" (I think that is the correct acronym for medical privacy rules) violation? Don't think so. HIPAA applies to covered entities, and I don't see dickhead exes on the list.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/6/2011 9:05:38 PM)
ty wyld. I figured there were some med type folks around.

WyldHrt -> RE: Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/6/2011 9:10:08 PM)
We're always around lurking just under the surface... resists urge to make herpes joke [;)]

Fellow -> RE: Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/6/2011 9:12:59 PM)
quote: "This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!" She would have a case if her name was mentioned. "The Mother" is anonymous statement.

TheHeretic -> RE: Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/6/2011 10:48:48 PM)
While I certainly think that spreading the dirty laundry of a relationship is a lousy thing to do, I have to go with the free speech. Steve, some of the fundy chicks are going to be beating his door down.

tazzygirl -> RE: Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/6/2011 11:45:44 PM)
Hmmm.. depends... According to your article, he is accusing her of murder. Could be something there. Especially if she had a miscarriage and not the abortion the ex is insiting upon. "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. Will be interesting to watch.

tazzygirl -> RE: Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/6/2011 11:47:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Well, obviously he'll never get a date again. Idiot. As I understood it, "privacy" is part of the relationship between an individual and the government, not between private parties. But the harassment claim is legit, and I'd expect something about being a public nuisance, etc. Interestingly, because abortion is legal, he is not liable for libel. If it were illegal, he would be. Libel would be valid if she miscarried.

DomKen -> RE: Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/7/2011 6:13:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: 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. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110606/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_billboard Apparently, this couple had a rather nasty-breakup. Whatever may have brought them to this, I think the question of whether free speech trumps privacy, is a good one. No way should the government force him to take the sign down and when he loses the civil case the woman can take everything he owns.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/7/2011 6:26:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: 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. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110606/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_billboard Apparently, this couple had a rather nasty-breakup. Whatever may have brought them to this, I think the question of whether free speech trumps privacy, is a good one. No way should the government force him to take the sign down and when he loses the civil case the woman can take everything he owns. What if he's flat broke, lives in his mom's basement and gets around in an '85 honda to his job at McBurger?

Owner59 -> RE: Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/7/2011 6:27:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: 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. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110606/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_billboard Apparently, this couple had a rather nasty-breakup. Whatever may have brought them to this, I think the question of whether free speech trumps privacy, is a good one. No way should the government force him to take the sign down and when he loses the civil case the woman can take everything he owns. After a court went through it,I`d have no problem with it`s decission, either way. If it was a miscarrage,then this little incect loser, emotionally retarded creep it should not only lose but should get sued in civil court.She can prove it what it was with the med. records. Just imagine how this cocksucker is going to feel when he wakes up( if ever).One day a stranger will point and say,"aren`t you the creepy billboard guy?"lol I don`t think that`ll have any appeal,even to a hard-up fundie-girl.

EternalHoH -> RE: Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/7/2011 6:28:40 AM)
She needs to take out a bigger ad on a bigger billboard. But then again, the anti-abortion fundies are probably funding his billboard anyway. He threads some narrow legal pathways here, and the average Joe doesn't do that unassisted. Follow the money.

DomKen -> RE: Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/7/2011 6:34:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: 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. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110606/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_billboard Apparently, this couple had a rather nasty-breakup. Whatever may have brought them to this, I think the question of whether free speech trumps privacy, is a good one. No way should the government force him to take the sign down and when he loses the civil case the woman can take everything he owns. What if he's flat broke, lives in his mom's basement and gets around in an '85 honda to his job at McBurger? Then how did he pay to put up a billboard?

EternalHoH -> RE: Free Speech vs. Privacy Rights (6/7/2011 6:37:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow She would have a case if her name was mentioned. "The Mother" is anonymous statement. But when his picture is up there, who else fits the role of 'mother'? They don't have to say her name to single her out.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875