Judge Tells Ex-Boyfriend to Remove Abortion Billboard

man who put up a controversial road side billboard accusing his ex-girlfriend of having an abortion has been ordered by a judge to take it down.

Greg Fultz, 35, took out the sign in Alamogordo, New Mexico in mid-May that read 'This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!'.

His ex-girlfriend, student Nani Lawrence, took Mr Fultz to court for harassment and invasion of privacy - as her friends claim she had a miscarriage.

Mr Fultz spent $1,300 on the right-to-life billboard accusing Miss Lawrence of aborting their baby, sparking a fierce free speech battle.

After the sign was erected Mr Fultz said he didn't know for sure whether Miss Lawrence had an abortion, and claimed the sign, which shows a picture of him holding a baby's silhouette, wasn't aimed at her personally.

It also emerged Miss Lawrence had set up a profile on babycenter.com, a website for mothers-to-be, last year. It shows a picture of her and Mr Futlz, with the poignant caption 'me and my boyfriend are so excited!'

Mr Fultz said the couple had been dating for six months, and Miss Lawrence lost the baby around the time the relationship ended, but had refused to tell him what happened.

He told ABC: 'My original intentions when I started this campaign were quite simple, I just wanted to shed the light on pro-life issues and fathers' rights. I have had no closure over my own personal loss and that's where the billboard came into play.

Miss Lawrence took legal action shortly after her ex-boyfriend installed the sign on White Sands Boulevard, between May 13 and 16.

But Fultz's attorney said his client is adamant about protecting his free speech rights and will appeal.

'He said he is prepared to go to jail for this,' attorney Todd Holmes said.

'His position is that this billboard is not really about her. It's about his statement of fathers' rights.'

did the judge skip class the day they taught about freedom of speech?

did the judge skip class the day they taught about freedom of speech?

well that's the argument.. at least per her attorney. Freedom of Speech vs. invasion of privacy. Claiming both are guaranteed via the constitution.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/a...-down.html



I don't have a strong opinion of this yet.. but it's quite interesting. In the past they've put up billboards for "deadbeat" fathers and people cheered (happened in detroit several times). Now you place a picture of a female on a billboard claiming abortion and all hell breaks lose. Granted the scenarios are slightly different, so it's more like apples to oranges.. but point being is that fathers seems to receive no right whatsoever until birth. And even then they have to start fighting and the female has to initiate the process just to get you involved. I do not think it's right depedicted her on a billboard claiming abortion.. but at the same time I feel it's not right to keep the future father in the dark and never even tell him what occurred (or even consult him about decisions). My issue doesn't lie in the abortion matter.. just w/ the double standard that occurs pre-brith and even post birth. So was he invading her privacy and should the billboard go down.. (b/c at this point it's still not). If show should they allow deadbeat father billboards?

did the judge skip class the day they taught about freedom of speech?

This was probably a defamation lawsuit and according to my knowledge, you can only publicly humiliate public officials like celebrities and government officials.

Judge's ruling will eventually be overturned. The SCOTUS has ruled [go.com] that speech, even if hateful, is protected:

"Speech is powerful," Roberts wrote. "It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain."

"On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation we have chosen a different course -- to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate," he said. "That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."

Roberts reasoned that for Albert Snyder to succeed in his claim that the church intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him and his family he had to demonstrate that the church deliberately or recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct when it protested at his son's funeral.

Roberts said that Snyder failed to meet that standard of proof because the protests were targeted to broad a public interest, occurred "peacefully" on public streets, complied with local ordinances, and were carried out with the permission of local authorities.

CASE CLOSED....NEXT???

Judge's ruling will eventually be overturned. The SCOTUS has ruled [go.com] that speech, even if hateful, is protected:

"Speech is powerful," Roberts wrote. "It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain."

"On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation we have chosen a different course -- to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate," he said. "That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."

Roberts reasoned that for Albert Snyder to succeed in his claim that the church intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him and his family he had to demonstrate that the church deliberately or recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct when it protested at his son's funeral.

Roberts said that Snyder failed to meet that standard of proof because the protests were targeted to broad a public interest, occurred "peacefully" on public streets, complied with local ordinances, and were carried out with the permission of local authorities.

CASE CLOSED....NEXT???

Without the billboard mentioning her name I don't see how this could be invasion of privacy.

It was in conjunction with other media activities he was involved in, where he did publicly identity her. I still think she would have a good case, but that's what they make lawyers and courts for.

Without the billboard mentioning her name I don't see how this could be invasion of privacy.