Well thats different isnt it? Does that really need saying?
Huh?
When else are people communicating sensitive/personal information to another? Do they regularly do it to random strangers or are they more likely to talk to the people they are closest to and/or people who are parties to the situation?
There is nothing you might say to your GF/wife that you would would consider personal and not want widely disseminated? It would be ok for them to advertise it to anyone and everyone because, in your view, she was close to you and/or the issue?
Hell, if you are married the law even recognizes this with a spousal privilege. That privilege in no way applies here (read that again) but shows the law/society recognizes you may say things to those you are most intimate with and expect a measure of confidentiality from them.
Something not deeply personal, private and likely embarrassing to someone else? I know that really narrows his choices and all.
But that’s not what he did, was it?
He publicly accused her of a crime-the murder of their child.
Oh come on, everybody - you included - know he’s talking about abortion. Even the woman suing him isn’t claiming she was accused of murder.
Again turning the attention of the thread participants to the Facebook question…
…I suspect that many people are intuitively concluding that the billboard should subject the billboard’s creator to liability, and that the Facebook posting should not.
It seems obvious to me that a Facebook post can be more public than the billboard in this case, since the community that can connect the dots (recognize the man, know the woman he was dating, realize she was the one that must have been pregnant) is not large.
There’s a ready acceptance of the billboard’s legal liability for its creator, and a real reluctance to reach the same conclusion for Facebook.
Why?
Yes, we all know he is talking about abortion.
He equated abortion to murder.
So therefore he is accusing her of murdering their child.
Doesn’t matter if she is suing him for that. That is what he did.
OK, so what? Pro lifers accuse abortion performing Doctors of being murderers all the time. They aren’t suing.
eta: basically I am saying this an asinine and useless line of argument. Who cares? It is beyond a side issue for this topic.
He is accusing a specific person of murdering another specific “person”, though as I said upthread I personally don’t think the woman has much of a case is she is not identified by name.
Your comment makes me wonder if any doctors have in fact tried to sue for defamation because of accusations of being “baby killers”. It sure sounds defamatory to me.
IANAL but I am pretty sure saying “abortion is murder and anyone who does it is a murderer” is different from saying something like, “CarnalK murdered my child” and publishing that when it is not true.
Well, yes, maybe I should sue when someone calls me a thief when all I did was violate a copyright. 
Well, the attorneys here feel a defamation suit would be difficult at best to make stick and probably would fail. Personally I think it’d be interesting to see litigated but that is neither here nor there.
I did note in post #68 that there is a civil suit for “Public Disclosure of Embarrassing Private Facts.”
It would seem to me (again noting IANAL) there is a good case for the woman to be had there.
And if you bother to look, one of my earlier post noted that IMO he possibly legally screwed the pooch by calling her a murderer.
There are two issues here. Is he in trouble/wrong for EXACTLY what he did and EXACTLY how the law/world/legal system works right now? Then there is the general principles sorta of discussion that relates to the given scenario.
And of course, as always, plenty of dopers can’t or won’t be able to tell the difference between the two and goofiness ensues.
- Thousands of people passing that billboard when it was first put up didn’t know what he meant-they only knew that he was accusing a woman of murdering his child.
- On the other hand, he had to have known that the media would pick up on it and broadcast her name all over the place, so I’m not buying any of that “At least he kept it anonymous” crap. He was probably hoping for a blurb along the line of, “Woman publicly accused of child murder identified as Jane Doe! More on that story later.”
Did those people also happen to miss the big, capitalized “PRO-LIFE” in the add?
Virtually no one here would know who the woman is question was or what she looked like if she hadn’t decided to sue. This case kind reminds me of the Streisand Effect.
The law has not caught up with the online world and we are seeing weird results.
On the face of it publishing on Facebook should be no different from publishing anywhere else. If you defame someone there then yeah, you are probably open to a civil suit.
Recently a blogger was sued for reporting truthful information and ordered to pay $60,000 in damages.
Others have been sued for reviews they have posted online.
Doctors now want to “own” any online posts you make about them (really…when you sign forms at the doctor’s office some are now including language that has them owning what you write about them). This is another means to stop what they view as defamation.
In short, I’d say there is lots of legal activity around this stuff and I see no reason why Facebook is somehow different in this respect.
Did you happen to notice her name on the board too?
He wrote it as N.A.N.I. National Association of Needed Information (there is no such organization).
The woman’s name is Nani.
Is that a common name where you live? I’ve never heard it before.
I suspect anyone who knows Nani and sees that would know it was her. Gossip ensues.
Personally I could not care less what someone in Montana thinks of me. I would be more concerned with what my friends/family/neighbors think.
I can safely say that the average person looking at that billboard would NEVER have figured out the the name of the organization was an acronym for his ex’s name. The only reason we all know that is because the ex girlfriend outed herself. Upon seeing that billboard, the average person would have simply shrugged off the billboard as a pro-life add and N.A.N.I as an anti-abortion organization.
The woman claims that she had a miscarriage; not an abortion. In fact one of the “Pro-Life” organizations that had their name added to the sign has asked that it be removed, since they also aren’t sure an abortion occurred.
To Joe Schmo sure.
Wanna bet it’d get Nani’s mom’s attention? Or her boss/co-workers? Or her friends’? Or members of her church (if she goes to one)?