According to this site he does not know what happened to the baby so the billboard is, by any standard, an assumption on his part:
Fultz, 35, claims that Lawrence was pregnant with his child during their six-month relationship last year. He admits that when the relationship ended, the baby was lost, but he does not know whether it was due to an abortion or a miscarriage. Fultz says that Lawrence would not tell him what happened.
I’m starting to think that if there was ever a woman, she was never pregnant. Dude’s amped up the crazy. His crazy goes to 11.
But that’s not what she sued for.
In any case, I’m pretty sure you have to prove actual harm for public disclosure of private facts. It can’t just be a case of “I’d rather people not know about this”. See here for a simple breakdown.
You come to this conclusion based on what? The article says she brought a claim for invasion of privacy. Public disclosure of private facts is one of the four types of common law invasion of privacy claims. The other three are intrusion into a person’s solitude, portraying someone in a false light, and commercial misappropriation of a person’s name, image, or identity.
What is harm in a privacy case? It’s defined by the kind of claim being brought. The standard isn’t “I’d rather people not know about this,” but it is related to finding the disclosure offensive. See my post No. 92.
Okay, maybe she did. Whatever.
Did you read my link? Harm and finding it offensive are separate criteria:
First of all, these are jury instructions, not a statement of the elements of a claim.
Second, I ask again, what kind of harm do you think is contemplated in a privacy law claim? I’m pretty sure that any harm contemplated under a public disclosure of private facts is not dependent upon a showing of monetary loss.
The harm was even spelled out by one of her lawyers in a quote in one of the articles upthread - “pain and suffering”.
You are new to American political “discussion” aren’t you?
First, I am against legal abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life. That being said, I don’t see the reasonable first amendment argument here. This woman is a non-public figure and the need for this man to get his political message out in the way he did, is dwarfed by her right to life her life as she chooses.
He has many other avenues in which to advocate his pro-life message, and I would applaud him for doing so. This, in my mind, is harassment, IIED, and for public policy reasons an unacceptable way to air a personal grievance.
I don’t want to restrain his speech. I agree with it. But this lady doesn’t have to be the poster child of abortion.
Legal, perhaps. But far from perfectly. I’m not sure how hard it would be to make a case for harm – just open a newspaper or watch a few news segments in which women who seek abortions are described or condemned. About 1.4 million women get abortions in the United States every year. That’s a whole lot of billboards that aren’t being put up, and a whole lot of women who are keeping quiet about the procedure. People will call in sick and describe their gastro, but I’m not sure a single woman has ever told their boss they’ve got to take time off to get an abortion… however legal it is.
Assuming the woman in question even got an abortion, which seems less and less a sound assumption.
Pro-Choice here but . . .
I read the billboard as more of an attack on abortion than the fetus-carrier.
It’s intended to send a message both ways, but most pro-choice billboards focus on the fetus (or mothers who can ‘make a different choice’ or some such) and avoid lambasting individual women who’ve chosen to have an abortion. Or who the billboard sponsor thinks had an abortion. Even people who think it’s a good idea to stand on the side of a highway with pictures of aborted fetuses have better public relations skills.
Because she’s the one who carries the pregnancy and has to give birth. That part’s pretty simple.
It doesn’t really seem he was asking that question genuinely but was instead explaining his impression of the message the billboard was sending.
I wasn’t sure in context.
Hence the added “blah blah blah” 
He is a sneaky one. According to his tweets her name is Nani. “National Association of Needed Information.” At the bottom of the sign it says “Created for N.A.N.I.”
Not sure if that has any affect on whether she has a case or not but it makes him even more creepier. I didn’t think that was possible.
I started out of the opinion that the asshole in question had a right to put up his billboard, but after reading the thread I now think that this is the deciding question.
Since neither party’s name appears on the billboard, the woman is therefore only identifiable as the billboard’s subject to people who already know the couple, so therefore the billboard can not, of itself, represent an invasion of privacy. (Effectively no different than calling all of their mutual acquaintances to reveal her abortion; again, a dick move, but not [I assume] actionable.)
The woman lost her privacy – a ‘private fact became public’ – when her identity was revealed in the press and/or online as an indirect result of the billboard. If the proximate cause of this revelation was her lawsuit, then it’s her own responsibility and she should have no case. On the other hand, if the billboard itself drew public attention for the boyfriend, who then revealed the girlfriend’s identity when asked, I say he is responsible. Whether he would also be responsible merely for revealing his own identity (knowing that the press would then likely use that information to find out and publish his girlfriend’s name) is a harder question. Probably … not?
Oh, well, in that case I’m inclined to say “fuck him.” That organization isn’t, apparently, a real thing; it’s just what he decided to call his own campaign. He *did *put the woman’s name on the billboard. While I acknowledge that there’s some wiggle room there because it would not be evident to people that “N.A.N.I.” was meant to identify the “culprit,” as a hypothetical juror I would be rather inclined to find for the plaintiff (which may be driven more by emotion than logic at this point, I admit).
He’s got some nerve calling himself a Pagan. I hope when the shitstorm comes down on his ass, he remembers the Rule of Three. He’s just the kind of skeevy, oily bastard that calls himself a Pagan just to get sex.
Bastard.
Thought experiment:
Martha runs a pro-life organization. Seeking to publicize what she feels are problems with abortion for the fathers involved, she decides to run a series of ads featuring a father pining for his lost - i.e., murdered - child and inveighing against the girlfriend that decided upon an abortion without his consent. She designs a layout, puts out a casting call for models, hires a photographer, and shoots the scene, then buys ad space on billboards, bus sides and bus stop shelters, and Metro train overheads. She even springs for a magazine page in a local glossy publication.
Any problems there?
Now, let’s add this fact: unbeknownst to her, the model she casts does in fact have a girlfriend, and that girlfriend did in fact have an abortion that he didn’t want her to have.
Does the girlfriend now have a case?
Could how many other people these facts were beknownst to have a bearing?
(I just couldn’t pass up an opportunity to say “beknownst”. It may be my first time. :p)