There’s at least two issues here. Was it ACTUALLY his (and how does the issue of it being true or not or who knows what when go down legally)? And did he have the right to reveal that (whether its true or not)?
Guess which one we are talking about at the moment?
Couldn’t she just put up another billboard saying that it takes more than 20 seconds and a 3 inch penis to impregnate her.
Not to speak for anyone else but I think he was on the notion that Public Disclosure of Embarrassing Private Facts law would be a more likely avenue to litigate in which case it doesn’t matter whether he is the father or not.
Yes. Legally thats probably the key here as far I can tell so its not like I disagree with the position.
But we were responding to TrecherousCretin’s post number 174 which dealt with the question of if the truth was important…So bringing up that a certain position that the truth isnt important is kinda beside the point of talking about a situation where the truth actually is (at least theorectically) important.
This is the reason for the private facts law.
Although if you didn’t have that law life would be more interesting as people put up billboards to embarrass people.
Imagine a court case for defamation on the above billboard.
“Sir, here’s a ruler, drop your pants and show the jury your penis is longer than three inches. After that we have lubed this sex doll up to see if you can last more than 20 seconds.”
Gotta admit it’d make for riveting (albeit disgusting with that guy) courtroom drama. 
The peep holes court.
She understood it, which goes a long way in supporting the argument that he caused her pain and suffering. ABC reported that Fultz recent had the N.A.N.I. thing taken off the billboard. He says it was because it was distracting people from his message. In the real world I’m sure this means his lawyer told him his best defense was that he was making a general statement about abortion and not lashing out against his ex-girlfriend, and that the direct reference to the girlfriend severely undercut that defense. In theory they are probably hoping that without a direct reference to her, the billboard is a political message and can stay. On the other hand it seems to me the change tacitly acknowledges the personal harrassment nature of the original message.
I’ve seen pictures of the billboard from May 16, and stories that say it went up in mid-May. A local news station did a story about the billboard on the morning of May 18th. It became a national story in the last few days. It’s not unusual for lawyer to send out press release about their cases, and that may have contributed to the publicity here. But it looks like the billboard was local news within a few days of its completion.
For reference, about 35,000 people live in Alamogordo, so it’s not a big town. Many of the news stories say the billboard is on the main highway in town, or one of the main highways, but it’s not clear to me which road it is, or how busy it is.
Just to update, the KOAT story says the billboard is on White Sands Boulevard, which is part of U.S. Route 70 (and Route 54, I think). I’m not sure how big or busy the road is. In some pictures it looks like there are two lanes, but I think I see four in others. Neither one really says anything about the traffic.
As I recall, that’s the main street through town. It’s definitely part of the route from Albuquerque to Alamogordo, which is reasonably well-traveled.
I have only been back once or twice since 2003, though, so my memory could be a touch faulty.
Looks like someone got hold of his twitter feed.
For someone so quick to accuse someone else of murder, he sure fantasizes about it a lot.
I’ll bet you $100 that, on appeal, this verdict is overturned.
What do you say?
If it goes to appeal I would not take that bet. I’m surprised the judge didn’t set aside the jury’s verdict (although not sure when and where it is possible for judges to do that).
Unless the guy gets legal aid (e.g. the ACLU or someone helps pay his legal bills) is it worth litigating an appeal to save $60,000? How much would you guess an appeal would cost? How much time, effort and money? And of course you might not win on appeal. So you are out the $60,000 still plus legal fees. Even a good case is still a gamble.
The average Joe can easily be harassed by companies that have staff attorneys. A simple, “take your review down or we sue” letter would scare most people without means to litigate a case into just removing the review.
You also have not commented on consumer gag contracts. What if every manufacturer adds such a clause to their small print? Restaurants post a small sign in their window that says by eating there they own any reviews you write? And so on.
That doesn’t help his position at all.
Dude that fat and fugly should be happy he’s getting any and doubly relieved his bitch ex isn’t chasing him for child support. But he has the right to his whacky opinion and it’d be wrong to take that billboard down according to USA laws.
Hmmm . . . if it’s such an unreliable data point, why did you offer it up as a cite for your side? Since you no longer seem confident in the case’s ability to survive scrutiny and stand for the proposition you assert it stands for, may we discard it entirely from this discussion?
Huh? Not sure what you are driving at.
As it stands the guy lost his case. He may win on appeal, I would bet he would, but he hasn’t yet. Can you predict the future with certainty?
More, my main point was addressing Bricker asking a hypothetical about Facebook. I said US law seems to be figuring this out but that there are cases in which people are being sued for what they write online. They may be protected so far by the First Amendment but not for lack of people trying to sue them and I did cite a case where, apparently, the First Amendment did not protect the guy. It might yet but that requires him to go through a lot more time and effort and money to defend himself.
I am not really making much more point here except to answer Bricker that publishing on Facebook is, I think, legally equivalent to publishing anywhere else and carries the same potential for civil suit for defamation or private facts.
If you disagree with that then say so.
That guy looks like he’s going to eat the baby in the bill board. Maybe that’s why he’s so pissed. Instead of a delicious and tender 2 month baby steak, he has to choke down another turd of an overcooked rib eye.
A judge just ordered the billboard taken down. He ordered it removed as part of the order of protection which the woman had sought against the guy, which the judge granted.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/06/23/national/a170326D65.DTL
I think the guy’s a schmuck, but I probably would have supported his right to this billboard if he hadn’t tried to get cute about naming the woman directly. At that point, I think it crossed over into being harassment. And, of course, I support a woman’s right to an abortion over anyone’s objection.
Also: I suspect Fultz is not really prepared to do hard time over this, but I guess we’ll see. Probably be good for him.
What about the fact that she has a right to privacy and a right not to be defamed? Harassment is not the only issue.
And of course the whole point is that she might be identifiable, either because he sneaked her name into the billboard or because people who know her would recognize his image.
This isn’t really about his free speech rights at all from my perspective.
I don’t think it’s defaming her to say that she had an abortion, unless of course she didn’t have an abortion. Even if she doesn’t want people to know it, if it’s the truth, it’s not defamation.
I’m fuzzier on the whole right to privacy thing for individuals and gossip about them. I guess (from reading this thead) it’s against the law? I guess there’s a difference between just gossiping and taking out an ad. But my admittedly limited understanding on the constitutional right to privacy, such as it is, is a right to make personal decisions for oneself - not a right to avoid being talked about.
Saying that she killed his child is defamation, IMO, even if, in his sad little brain, that’s what he thinks happened. Abortion is a legal medical procedure. It’s not murder. Anti-abortionists shouldn’t be allowed to frame the discussion on their terms.
That said, if he hadn’t named her, I think he could plausibly claim he wasn’t talking about her, specifically. Since he did, it’s not reasonable, imo, for him to claim that he wasn’t talking about her and trying to attack her, personally.
If had kept her name out of it, she could have reasonably just shrugged off the news. She could just say, “What? Fultz? Oh I dumped him months ago. Feel bad for his current girlfriend.” Therefore, I think the key point is that he specifically named. Since he did, I agree with the judge’s decision to include the billboard as part of his overall restraining order.
Even though he’s a schmuck, I do think freedom of speech is just as important as reproductive freedom, especially when I hate what’s being said. Calling a specific person a murder for undergoing a legal procedure is defamation and harassment, but if he’d phrased it something like, “I wish my girlfriend had kept our baby”, and kept her identity out of it, I think it would have rightfully passed muster.