jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (126 posts)

Judge Orders Pro-Life Billboard Taken Down Free Speech vs Abortion

  1. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    -"ALAMOGORDO, N.M. (The Blaze/AP) — A state district judge Thursday ordered an Alamogordo man to immediately take down a billboard that implies his ex-girlfriend had an abortion.

    As we reported earlier this month, 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!”

    State District Judge James Counts issued the ruling as part of protective order the woman sought after Greg Fultz, 35, had the sign posted in mid-May.

    Fultz’s ex-girlfriend has taken him to court for harassment and violation of privacy. A domestic court official had recommended the billboard be removed. According to ABC News:

    The billboard cost $1,300, which Fultz paid for with the help of donations. Fultz said the donations came from various individuals who heard about his plan, not from businesses or other anti-abortion rights groups.

    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.”

    It was unclear if the woman had an abortion or a miscarriage.

    Her attorney, Ellen Jessen, said earlier this month that she has not discussed the pregnancy with her client because that was not the point. The central issue is her client’s privacy and the fact that the billboard has caused severe emotional distress, she said."-

    The Billboard can be seen here...

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/judge-o … aken-down/

    As far as I am concerned this is a no-brainer. The excersize of your, "Right to Free Speech", is one of the mose valuable Rights we have, and CAN BE found in the Constitution, unlike the, "Right to Abortion", which cannot.

    I hope this man continues his fight through the courts, I would donate to help pay for it. I have said it before and will continue to say it, Roe -Vs- Wade will be over-turned in my life.

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The man talked about in the article is definitely one of many people in America who are a prime example of SIM! sad

      If anyone is interested in what is SIM? *Stupidity In Motion

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        He even says he isn't sure how she lost the baby!

        1. TMMason profile image73
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          She isn't mentioned, john... nowhere is her name on that sign. So that argument doesn't hold water. Any many could have put up that sign and expressed that opinion. And most likely one of his ex's has had an abortion and could claim it was regarding her. That is not enough to crush a man' or women's right to free speech. Her name is not mentioned, and she is simply suffering from a guilty conscience.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So you're saying that everybody is so stupid that they'll never know who he refers to?
            Had he kept his remarks general then I'd have said more power to him,but he didn't and his comments make quite clear that the billboard is addressed to one specific person, a person clearly recognisable to friends and acquaintances.

            1. TMMason profile image73
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              How many people do you actually think know her, or him?

              I am sure he is not nation-wide in his recognition. Even now I do not think too many people will remember him next week.

              The term "my ex had an abortion" could apply to most of the men in this country. All ads such as these use a personal inclusive tag line on them. Look at pro-abortion commercials and ads, they are drafted the same way. With a personal message from an individual.

              And if a man cannot speak about abortion becuse one of his ex's had one... then no man in this country could speak on it. Of course that is the logic of the Left. That no man has a right to an opinion on abortion.

              If it had been a women model who said in an ad, "my ex knocked me up and left so I am glad PP gave me the resources to have an Abortion.", and one of her ex's came along and said she is talking about me, and tried to sue, he would be laughed at.

              Same here. She is not mentioned and I can tell you honestly that no one knew who this man was in this country, or his ex, untill she shoved herself into the spot-light. That was her own guilty conscience, not his actions that did that. She felt as if eveyone was judging her... because she had already judged herself at some level and found herself wanting and guilty in the internal judgement.

              A guilty conscience will do that to you.

              1. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Willful ignorance on behalf of the guy who put up the billboard isn't an excuse for his actions. Hence, why it was taken down. He apparently didn't understand his own rights and how those rights were not to infringe upon the rights of others.

                What a shame he IS on the rest of society. roll

          2. kerryg profile image86
            kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, he named the pro-life organization he founded after her - Nani - so as you can see, her name is on the billboard:

            http://i51.tinypic.com/33m2xs4.jpg

    2. American View profile image62
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      TMM,

      We usually agree with each other but this ones different. My response will have nothing to do with the abortion ussue, thats an entirly different debate. But its about privacy. If he was to put that billboard up with a picture of a model holding a cutout of a baby ssaying the same message and without signing his name to it. I would have no problems withe the billboard under the first ammendment right to free speech. But he used a picture of him, signed his name, so everyone would know who he is talking about that had the abortion. Now legal or not, thats is also another debate, Ablortion is a medical procedure and as such it is confidential unless the lady herself comes out she had an abortion. His billboard in its current form violates her medical right to privacy.

      The HIPAA Privacy Rule provides federal protections for personal health information held by covered entities and gives patients an array of rights with respect to that information. The Privacy Rule applies to all forms of individuals' protected health information, whether electronic, written, or oral. In this case the billboard in its current form violates written and oral.

      What Information Is Protected
      •Information your doctors, nurses, and other health care providers put in your medical record
      •Conversations your doctor has about your care or treatment with nurses and others
      •Information about you in your health insurer’s computer system
      •Billing information about you at your clinic
      •Most other health information about you held by those who must follow these laws

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        He is not a medical provider so I do not believe Hippa applies to him.

        And I agree AV it was a pretty rotten thing to do, but he has the right to do it as far as I can see. The Higher court will most definitly be seeing this case and we will see in the end what they say.

        We can dis-agree though, that is not a bad thing. And you do not attack people just cause you dis-agree with them which is great and I wish more would follow that example.

        1. American View profile image62
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          TMM,

          You are right he is not, but the privacy laws apply to everyone, not just providers. Say you have some medical procedure done recently that you do not want anyone to know. But I found out and put it on a billborad in such a way everyone around you knows it was you. That is a violation under HIPPA. And thats what has happened here. Her private medical procedure was outed.

          If he would have just done what I suggested earlier, he would have been fine under the first amandmant.

          AS for attacking, at least we may disagree on this but we present our case in a civil manner for all to evaluate. Not name calling, nothing hostile, Just calm talk

          1. TMMason profile image73
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If that is true she has remedy through the courts, AV. I was not aware Hippa applied to private individuals. Thanks for clearing that up.

    3. IntimatEvolution profile image82
      IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What were the exact words of his ruling?   I mean this was a privacy rights issue, so it appears that Roe vs. Wade was never the subject matter, hence it's not a free speech issue.  Or at least it isn't to me.  You cannot going around harassing people, just because of the first amendment.

      http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment

      "The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence."  According to Cornell U the Judge was actually following the law.

  2. 0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    The man who posted that billboard is petty and needs psychiatric help. Set your views on abortion aside for a moment and look at the core of the complaint against him.  With no proof that an abortion happened that advertisement is libelous and a gross invasion of privacy.

    How would you feel if there was a billboard insinuating you had stolen something, simply because it had gone missing from a friends house? Or that  you murdered someone, simply because you were the last one in the hospital room before they died?

    Rights to free speech END where they begin to stomp on the rights of others. I wish there were criminal charges brought against that man. What an arrogant and callous way to conduct oneself.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well said.

  3. simeonvisser profile image87
    simeonvisserposted 5 years ago

    I agree with Emile. It would have been a free speech versus abortion issue if it was not targeted at a specific individual and a specific case. Now it's a purely libellous message. So in this case, the billboard should indeed be taken down.

  4. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 5 years ago

    "It was unclear if the woman had an abortion or a miscarriage."

    Says it all really.

  5. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Calling "Buying a billboard to call your ex-wife a baby killer" really isn't "pro-life".

    That's more like "Pro-F**ktard"

    1) The government shouldn't be involved because...

    2) why the hell did the billboard company agree to that?

    1. Greg Sage profile image60
      Greg Sageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sounds to me like someone at the billboard company needs to be fired for lack of judgement and basic human dececy.

      Pro-F**ktard indeed.

      What an incredibly arrogant, thoughtless, and invasive gesture from a clearly mentally ill man.  Get over it.  She left you.

      Wonder why.

  6. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    “His position is that this billboard is not really about her. It‘s about his statement of fathers’ rights.”

    Nowhere in that ad on the billbord is her name mentioned. It is his right to freely express his opinion on Abortion, regardless of where that opinion is expressed. Sounds to me like she is suffering from a guilty conscience.

    So if my ex had an abortion... or I am unsure what happened to our child, then I can never have an opinion on that subject or express my opinion on it? That is retarded.

    1. prettydarkhorse profile image64
      prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Imagine if we are all allowed to post venomous propaganda and personal vendetta against all those people who we thought have wronged us. What a mess, TM.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image62
        Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Imagine if we are all allowed to post venomous propaganda and personal vendetta against all those people who we thought have wronged us."

        It would be Joe McCarthy heaven.

      2. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I do not agree it was right to do PDH. But I have to agree that he has the Right to do it.

        Just like the west-burough baptists, and the hate filled anti-Americanists who burn flags, etc. It is speech we do not agree with that needs protection the most.

        And yes I can imagine it... but I cannot imagine we all want to ban free speech, either. That would be an even worse wolrld to live in. Ask a survivor of NAZI Germany, or Stalin's Russia, or Castro's Cuba?

        I bet they would rather have free speech, than no speech.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          But;-

          "The right to freedom of speech and expression is closely related to other rights, and may be limited when conflicting with other rights  <edit> As a general principle freedom of expression may not limit the right to privacy, as well as the honor and reputation of others."

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

          1. TMMason profile image73
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Note what Wiki Says... and yes they have it right.

            -"Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws, with the exception of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words,[1] as well as harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, commercial speech such as advertising, and time, place and manner restrictions.

            Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, sexism, and other hate speech are almost always permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (copyright and patent), interests in "fair" political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance."-

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of … ted_States

            You could argue it is defamation... but then you would have to prove that anyone who read the sign knew it was about her. And I do not see that as provable. I guess we shall see what the higher courts have to say about it.

            As I said I wouldn't have done it, it is crass, rude, and iognorant, all wrapped in one. But he has the right to flap his jaws and spout whatever ignorance he wants. He did not name her and 99.99% of America will never know it is about her. I do not see defamation of charactor standing in court.

            But I may be wrong. You never know.

        2. prettydarkhorse profile image64
          prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It is not banning free speech, it is a personal vendetta, you can't just post anything personal against anybody.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You'll note that TM only supports freedom of expression when it suits him.
            When it doesn't you'll find no more vehement opponent.

            1. TMMason profile image73
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Bullshit John. All you do is play games so don't bother.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Bullshit! Really, and who are you to tell me not to bother exposing your hypocrisy?

                1. TMMason profile image73
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You can do whatever floats youir lil boat, there is no hypocrisy in my words.

                  You'r just angry you got schooled yesterday.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No hypocrisy! Hey it's OK to slag this woman off, she had an abortion, but don't you dare fly an Islamic flag.

                    Who got schooled yesterday, and how?

    2. kerryg profile image86
      kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Her name is on the billboard. See my post above.

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That is very slim, but she can try. I doubt she will get anywhere in the higher courts. You are allowed to name an org what you want. So...

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Have you no decency Mr. Mason? Apparently not.

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Your 30 second edited lie doesn't cut it anymore ralph. I have the full transcript and it tells the truth Murrow and his treasonous ilk tried to hide for so long.

        You know Welch outed Fischer 6 week before McCarthy mentioned his association to the communist Lawyers Guild... and that come from the New york time who ran the story ralph. So yes I do. Go read my replies to that question in the other thread. I don't have a 45 second edited sound bite, I have the Senate records and the NY Times records to prove Welch outed his lil friend, not McCarthy.

        Huh... what a joke. As I said it is all in my Hubs...

        And they show without a doubt that though...

        "All of which seems very moving, and is invariably so treated. It looks a little different, however, when we note that, well before this dramatic moment, Fred Fisher had already been outed, in conclusive fashion, as a former member of the National Lawyers Guild—by none other than Joe Welch. This had occurred in April, some six weeks before the McCarthy-Welch exchange, when Welch took it upon himself to confirm before the world that Fisher had indeed been a member of the Guild, and for this reason had been sent back to Boston. As the New York Times reported, in a story about the formal filing of Army allegations against Cohn-McCarthy:"

        http://hubpages.com/hub/Army-McCarth-he … -the-Truth

        Facts ralph facts... you canot lie anymore about McCarthy.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Most sentient Americans consider Murrow the greatest radio newsman of all time. He was followed by TV suck-ups like Tim Russert.

          1. TMMason profile image73
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Murrow was a liar.

            He even new that Welch had outed fFischer 6 weeks before. He is a liar.

            The article ran in the, New York Times, date of the article is April 16, 1954, the title of the article is; "McCarthy Will Boycott Inquiry Pending Action On News Leaks" Go check the record Ralph, your trapped in the Leftists own lies. Fischer was outed by Welch in that article... and it is a matter of fact supported by the record of the NY Times and the US Senate. So stay in denial if you want, the rest of the world will be reading the truth.

            And that proves it. His edit hit jobs are legendary, and he used them well to minipulate the public. So you have fun clinging to your Leftism... the rest of America see the lies and we are finding the truth everyday.

            You believe wiki over the actual record ralph, that speaks volumes about your narrow-minded view. You are the one who need to do more research and stop taking peoples word for it.

  7. Robephiles profile image86
    Robephilesposted 5 years ago

    You aren't allowed to knowingly lie about people in a forum such a billboard or newspaper.  That is what libel is.  Despite the fact that the woman isn't named his picture is there and it would be easy for anybody to figure out who he is refering to.  If the billboard hadn't targetted a specific person it would be fine.  You no that famous saying about opinions?  TMMason is the biggest opinion on hubpages.  wink

    1. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No libel case because she is not mentioned... period.

      And anybody eh? Go ask the random individual if they know who he is talking about. You assume too much.

      And free speech protects the speech we do not like more than any other... including speech the Leant Left and abortion fanatics hates. opposing opinion have the right o be spoken, whether anyone likes it or not.

      And calling me names doesn't make you right. lol So grow up.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image62
        Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        A couple of days ago, our Mccarthite hubber was protesting that Ralph was always calling him a liar (by questioning the facts of TMM's posts.)

        Though Ralph never called our favorite teabagger a liar, he was accused of it, and it was a move to suppress Ralph's free speech.

        1. TMMason profile image73
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That is the usual BS you sling Doug. If anyone's free speech is supressed on this site it is the right-wingers. lol oh you are so funny. Thank you, I needed a laugh.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image62
            Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Any one who pays attention is amused. Yesterday you posted a protest of the tax-exempt status of Media Matters for exposing the litany of lies on Fox. (Conservative tax-free organizations got a pass in your post.)

            The laugh is that you support unlimited free-speech ONLY when it supports your bias.

            1. 0
              Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks Doug...I think he believes that only he sees these threads and everyone can't read what happened.

            2. TMMason profile image73
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You don't get to use my tax dollars to support your speech. huh nice try at the twisting though. Totally different issues.

              One is free Speech, the other tax payer funded propaganda on an issue. And the flag issue is, Seperation... do I have to explain everythting to you guys. Try some critical thought and reasoning skills... oh they don't teach them anymore. Never mind..

              1. 0
                Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                By that logic, I can put a billboard outside of your neighborhood saying anything I want about your daughter, and leave it up for all the gang to see, that is free speech. Would you be cool with that? Sorry, you can complain all you want,  but you can't use billboards for personal vendettas.
                You never addressed the tax funded propaganda of the conservatives yesterday either.Once again...too much of a child to man up.

                1. American View profile image62
                  American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Tex,

                  While its not a cool thing to do, a billboard like that is allowed under first amendment. I think a billboard like that would suck, but thats the law. But if you did one calling someone a slut because they contracted a STD and gave it to you( I know that woulod not happen its just an example) then the billboard is wrong for violating privacy. There are plenty of billboards that post personal vendettas, look for them at election time. Remember the one that was on 75 about Mayor Kirk. That one was cold.

              2. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Obviously not if you think it's OK to defame somebody on a billboard but not OK to fly a flag noting the religion of a dead American hero!

                1. TMMason profile image73
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The flag is covered under seperation. Too bad if you do not like it. And the billboard doe not mention her name, no defamation, it is freedom of speech. Too bad. The argument doesn't change, and your position doesn't magically win cause you state it over and over.

                  And tex... I ignore all rednecks, get your hood on, go burn a cross on someones lawn and embrace your hate. I have seen your kind many times in Texas and the south. Talk about ignorance.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    And neither does your's.
                    Mine at least has logic and fairness on its side.

                  2. 0
                    Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Typical...that has been a conservative method lately I have noticed. They take elements of their own belief system, elements that are horrible like racism and bigotry, and project it upon others. They did the same with the party of no, not compromising, etc. It is quite childish actually, but then again, we have already figured out the difference in the parties is not issues, but maturity.

                  3. American View profile image62
                    American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    TMM,

                    I have to stick up for Tex here. First I know you have like my hubs and our conversations here on threads. Well I live in Plano, Texas. I believe Tex lives in Dallas. Its a city here, not country. Noone here even wers a cowboy hat.

                    While Tex can get his back up at times, and I may not agree with him very often, I think I can safely say he does not belong to the whitesheet wearers club.

                    I know you may have been upset when you wrote that, But I know better of you. Remain calm, count to 3. LOL

  8. Stump Parrish profile image59
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    TM, that billboard was posted in his and her hometown. Are you suggesting that no one who knows either of them wouldn't be able to figure out who the billboard was attacking.

    I have a definite opinion of you, do you have a problem with me buying a billboard in your home town and expressing my opinion for everyone in your town to see?

    1. Greg Sage profile image60
      Greg Sageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      In Alamogordo?  Surely that burgeoning metropolis is thousands of times too populous for anyone to know her relationship to him.  Surely the billboard is so innocuous as to be incapable of stirring the locals to attach a name to what is clearly a PERSONAL message.

      Surely no one would pay attention outside of that place and draw even more attention to her... creating permanent records of her supposed abortion for the world to see via discussion of the billboard.

      WE certainly aren't.

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You weren't.

        Till I posted it.

        Were you? No.

        You would have never known.

        And niether would anyone else in this world... till she sued and put herself into it. And I do not care if it is a personal message. There is no name and it is perfectly within his rights to speak as he wants to on the issue. Hell... he even has the right to say, "I beleive she aborted my baby." and still there would be nothing legally wrong with it.

        Is it pretty harsh? Yes. Is it somethin I would've done? No.

        Is it moronic and ignorant? Yes. But does he have the Right to freely express himself in this way.? Yes.

        I am not arguing he was right to do it... just that he has the right to do it.

        Big difference.

    2. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Go for it stumpy. I would love to see it. I don't care if they know them or not, her name is not on it, no defamation. And she says she did not have an abortion... so what does she have to be ashamed of? Maybe the fact she did. So a woman can kill am man's child and lie to him about it to boot... great society you all want to live in. Baby killing and lies... no problem... that's as good as the schools teaching the kids that if they aren't cheating, they are not trying hard enough. What a world.

      1. shogan profile image87
        shoganposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "that's as good as the schools teaching the kids that if they aren't cheating, they are not trying hard enough."

        Are you referencing a story in the news?  Or just your take on a general condition?

  9. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 5 years ago

    But as far as I'm aware,defamation does not require that the defamed should be known to 100% of the population.

    1. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      - General elements of defamation, slander and libel -

      A false and defamatory statement of fact concerning another person

      A “publication” of that statement to a third party (someone other than the defamed person) That is understood to be

      (i) referring to the plaintiff/defamed person; and

      (ii) tends to harm the reputation of the plaintiff/defamed person and cause damages

      If the plaintiff/defamed person is a public figure (famous), the fault of the publisher must be “actual malice” (an intent to harm the plaintiff)

      Under the law, the word “publication” means “shared with a third party” and not printed. A verbal conversation sharing a lie about another person or a radio broadcast containing the lie can both constitute “publication” under law to make a defamation case. While these are the general elements of defamation actions, your state may have enacted specific statutes that deal with making and defending a case for libel and slander

      Damages and “Per Se” Injury

      In order to make a successful case for libel or slander, the defamatory words must have directly affected someone’s reputation to the point that they are exposed to hatred, contempt or pecuniary or monetary loss.

      Simply stating a lie that is not damaging is not actionable, for example, if A told B that C was wearing a blue shirt when C’s shirt was actually green. If there was no damage suffered by C, no defamation case for slander could be made.

      Despite the need to prove damages to make a defamation case, many jurisdictions also recognize “per se” defamation where, on its face, it’s clear that damage has been caused.

      allegations that an unmarried person is “unchaste” or promiscuous

      allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease

      allegations that a person has committed a crime of moral turpitude (serious crime)

      damaging statements concerning a person’s professional character or standing

      http://www.thelaw.com/guide/personal-in … l-slander/

      I believe this sums it up... -"In order to make a successful case for libel or slander, the defamatory words must have directly affected someone’s reputation to the point that they are exposed to hatred, contempt or pecuniary or monetary loss."-

      "Simply stating a lie that is not damaging is not actionable"

      Also she would have to come out and prove she did not have an Abortion.

      I do not believe she can meet the necessary requesites...

      I am sure she could try for emoitional distress... but if she didn't have an Abortion, then what distress would it have caused? Because she is mad that he thinks she did, or that others do, is not good enough.

      But we will see in the higher courts, John.

  10. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 5 years ago

    But how does this noble stance for freedom of expression tie in with your thoughts about Islamic flags and the banning thereof?

    1. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It doesn't, they are two different issue.

      That flag is a religious symbol, a symbol of Islam, and as such should not be flown on State, Fed, or county, property.

      That has been the argument of the left for decades now... they cannot change it cause it doesn't fit the agenda now.

      I myself find it to be insulting that it would be flown in that memorial. That flag represents Islam, not a country of origin of soldiers who died for the USA.

      The left has fought to remove any religion, or symbols of religion, from the public sqaure, but for this it is okay? No no way! If Christianity is not allowed in the public sqare, then niether is Islamic symbolism. They, the left, just know that Islam will hit the roof if they ever said get your religion out of our sqare. The mobs of Muslims would be in the sqare with all there religious items and symbols.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So,no religious flag to be flown!

        "Stephen James said Thursday that Hewett's decision to fly no flags at the memorial still violates the city's policy, which states that residents requesting a flag to honor a family member who is a veteran must pick a flag that represents the veteran's faith tradition."

        Strange when city policy says that a religious flag MUST be flown.
        And note, it says "faith" not "country of origin".

        And isn't our boys objection to abortion on religious grounds?

        Seems like one law for conservatives and another for the rest.

        1. TMMason profile image73
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Federal Law out-wieghs, super-cedes, State or County, John. So goes the argument the left uses all the time to Centralize Authority.

          Another trap they have caught themselve in.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So you're saying that the city's laws are illegal!
            It seems to me that you are arguing to centralise authority.

            Question:- when is freedom of expression not freedom of expression?
            Answer:- when it doesn't suit.

            1. TMMason profile image73
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I am telling you that a City, County, or State law, that contradicts federal law, is super-ceded by the federal laws.

              I am telling you that is the argument the Left and Progressives have put forth over and over now for a 80- years. What do you think the battles about immigration are over, State Rights, and their Right to pass laws in conflict with the feds, and to enforce as they see fit.

              I myself believe State Rights are co-equal with the fed laws. And that the states have the Right to not only pass laws in conflict with the feds, but to nullify any federal law they do not like.

              But they have got what they wanted and now they should have to abide by them. As you alluded to earlier, one law for all.

              So enough of the games.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I wonder what federal law prohibits the flying of a flag representing the religion of a fallen soldier?

                1. TMMason profile image73
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It is a religious symol, take it up with your fellow Leftists John. It wasn't I said no religion in public places or on federal or state land. No... that was your Leant Leftist buddies.

                  And her name isn't on it. To bad if he named his org that, it is not her name, but the name of the org. Another free speech issue, he can name an org anything he wants.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    But you've got a city insisting that religious flags must be flown.Your objection doesn't fit with your dislike of centralised government.
                    And why is your objection restricted to Islamic flags, why not Buddhist or any other religion?

              2. American View profile image62
                American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The Establishment Clause prohibits the federal, state or municipal establishment of an official religion or other preference for one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion.

                Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government. A number of the states effectively had established churches when the First Amendment was ratified, with some remaining into the early nineteenth century.

                Subsequently, Everson v. Board of Education (1947) incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by the states. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."[1]

                Meaning

                The Establishment Clause's meaning has been a point of contention among different groups and its meaning has been interpreted differently at different times in American history.[2] According to liberals, the Establishment Clause erects a wall of separation between church and state,[3] although this term did not appear in the First Amendment but in a personal letter sent by Thomas Jefferson to church leaders in Connecticut.[2]

                However, according to some conservatives, the Establishment Clause solely prevents the government from establishing a state church, not from publicly acknowledging God.[4][5] According to the Pew Research Center, the majority of Americans identify with the latter view, with 67% of Americans even deeming the United States a "Christian nation".[6][7]

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Doesn't this



                  contradict this?



                  Surely the city would be breaking the law if it allowed say Christian flags but not Buddhist, Hindu,Islamic flags,but not if it didn't show preference?

                  1. TMMason profile image73
                    TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    What contradicts what?

        2. American View profile image62
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          John,

          The city cannot fly a religious flag, we have seperation of state and church here.

  11. kerryg profile image86
    kerrygposted 5 years ago

    If he hadn't put her name on the billboard, it would have been disgusting and immature, but probably legal.

    Since he did put her name on the billboard, it is a clear violation of privacy and the judge was right to order it taken down.

  12. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    I suspect the judge might know the law better than we do.  Therefore reading his ruling might be a jumping of point for sensible discussion.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Not possible lol

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Not possible to find the ruling or not possible to have a sensible discussion?

        The ruling is probably on the NM website somewhere.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, not possible that the judge could know the law better than some people on this thread.

  13. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Judges are constantly over-turned in this country. So he may have based his rulig on his interpretation of the law, but that doesn't mean it will be upheld.

    So... as I said 10 times already; We will see what the Higher Courts have to say about it. I mean you all repeat something said hours ago, and act is if your the first to think of it and no one can comprehend it but you all.

    lolll What a laugh.

  14. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Yes, what a world.  It would be far more effective to just make her wear a scarlet letter.

    1. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It would be far more effective to have a child if you get pregnant, and not resort to devaluing and taking another human life to save your lil precious world, or because you are too lazy or irrisponsible to carry the wieght of the consequences of your actions.

      See how that works?

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nice to know you think anyone who gets pregnant unexpectedly deserves to lose the right to control their own body. But we had this debates in the courts.  Your position did not prevail.  The law is the law and it does not allow public shaming if individuals as an end run.

        1. TMMason profile image73
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Roe Vs Wade will be over-turned very soon. Science has shown life begins at conception and the courts do not ignore science. You can see that point watching "in the womb" shows. The lil biddies are alive and kikin.

          1. psycheskinner profile image81
            psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            When/if the law changes we will all have to abide by it or leave.

            Until then, people shouldn't undermine it.  That is not how the rule of law works.

            If you really fundamentally feel the need to civilly resist the law you do it in a way that brings the risk of retaliation against yourself, not someone else.  That is the difference between civil disobedience and terrorism.

            But for the record, the egg and sperm are alive too.  Life is not the morally relevant feature, personhood is.

            1. TMMason profile image73
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No life is, our Constitution defend and secures LIFE above all other rights.

              And niether my speaking out against Abortion, nor that billboard, is under-mining any law. I don't know how you would think that. They/he is not blowing up clinics nor stopping women from going to one.

              And I know the egg and sperm are alive also, Psyche. But that seems not to matter to the Left when it comes to debating Abortion. I have often stated that life is present even before conception, only to have the leftists and Progressives scream about masterbatory murder. And regulating masterbation is a lil beyond the pale, so I leave that argument alone.

              But LIFE is the right we are speaking of and that over-rides any right to privacy. That is why we have enumerated Rights. One supercedes the others in value. The most important is what is the foundation of the others, you would have no rights without LIFE.

    2. Greg Sage profile image60
      Greg Sageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And less degrading, frankly.

  15. livelonger profile image89
    livelongerposted 5 years ago

    This is so disturbing on so many levels. I'm glad that the judge ordered the sign taken down.

  16. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    The fact is you are talking to a mixed group of people some of whom don't have a big problem with first trimester abortion. I don't think abortion is a good thing unless done to save the mother or in case of sexual abuse or rape. But i find it quite acceptable even when done for utilitarian reasons.

    But that is a different to issue as to whether a scarlet letter billboard is legal.

    Which is different again from whether it is moral and/or ethical.

    I don't find it hard to see those things separately.

    I think the billboard is unethical, and that the judge is right to take it down while the legal issue is settled.

    1. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And I agree with all you say about the billboard. Abortion is a diffferent issue as you say and we will simply agree to dis-agree. And I was not grouping you into the attackers, psyche. I do not think you have ever just screamed names and degraded people from what I remember on here. So please do not take that as directed to you. I just wasn't thinking enough to differentiate everyone in here one from another.

  17. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    I don't think it is clear whether it is legal or not.  Ultimately that is up to the courts.

  18. fit2day profile image83
    fit2dayposted 5 years ago

    On one hand, I will say the billboard should've been taken down because it exploits the girl, on the other hand, if her name nor picture was used, then he has every right to put up the billboard.

    I think if nothing else, he should get his money back for the billboard, if the billboard was a problem, it shouldn't have been allowed to go up in the first place.

    I've seen plenty of billboards showing far worse than what this one supposedly had, but they stayed up. Like I said, if it directly attacks her character by using her name or picture, then take it down, other than that, it's free speech.

  19. Stump Parrish profile image59
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    That was as well stated as it could be Texas. I can't wait to see what kind of a non-answer TM spews forth in response.

  20. Sunny2o0o profile image60
    Sunny2o0oposted 5 years ago

    http://hubpages.com/hub/A-Billboard-An- … acy-Rights

    That's a Hub that I wrote on the topic.  Had he published the billboard without a picture of himself, I would have no problem with it, since no names are used.  However, the picture of himself complicates thing--clearly, anyone who knows either him or his ex-girlfriend--perhaps even vaguely--will know exactly who's involved here.  That's harassment, and definitely libel.

 
working