Ex-BF erects billboard claiming ex-GF aborted their baby. His free speech vs her privacy rights

[The_Man_In_Black]

@Lord_Feldon

Post-abortion syndrome is a hoax.

Tell that to my friends sister who 2 years after her abortion thought she actually had the baby.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@The_Man_In_Black

Tell that to my friends sister who 2 years after her abortion thought she actually had the baby.

I will.

There is no recognized diagnosis of “post abortion syndrome” and no studies that are worthwhile support any such conclusion.

Whatever is wrong with your friend’s sister is something else.

The term post-abortion syndrome (PAS) has subsequently been popularized and widely used by pro-life advocates[1][14][20] to describe a broad range of adverse emotional reactions which they attribute to abortion. The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association do not recognize PAS as an actual diagnosis or condition, and it is not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR or in the ICD-10 list of psychiatric conditions. Some physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that efforts to popularize the term “post-abortion syndrome” are a tactic used by pro-life advocates for political purposes.

<snip>

In 2008, a team at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore reviewed 21 studies involving more than 150,000 women, and determined: “The best quality studies indicate no significant differences in long-term mental health between women in the United States who choose to terminate a pregnancy and those who do not.”[24][25] Dr. Robert Blum, the senior author on the study, stated: “The best research does not support the existence of a ‘post-abortion syndrome’ similar to post-traumatic stress disorder.” The researchers further reported that “… studies with the most flawed methodology consistently found negative mental health consequences of abortion,” and wrote: “Scientists are still conducting research to answer politically motivated questions.”

SOURCE: Abortion and mental health - Wikipedia

[TreacherousCretin]

@billfish678

Well thats different isnt it? Does that really need saying?

Well, you had me wondering. Pardon me for asking.

[Dietrich_K]

@Oakminster

Hmmm. I’m tempted to nominate him for a special Darwin Award. I’d argue that he’s effectively removed himself from the gene pool, because no woman is ever going to fuck him again.

Have you seen pictures of the guy? It’s a flat out fucking miracle that he got a woman to fuck him in the first place.

[TreacherousCretin]

This is a very interesting thread. Begging forgiveness from those of you who might be irritated by such a stupid question:

Suppose “Nani” declares that Mr. Douche was not the father.

Would that have a significant impact on Mr. D’s legal position?

.

[billfish678]

@TreacherousCretin

Well, you had me wondering. Pardon me for asking.

Sorry if I got a bit pissy there.

Just a reflex action from the stereotypical doper poster response of trying to shoot down a point of view/opinion by comparing it to something that aint remotely related to the point that was made…

Now that you know what I meant and didnt and I know you weren’t trying to pull one of those lets go out and get an ice cream sundae somewhere

Sorry bout that.

[Odesio]

@Czarcasm

2. 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.”

I’m not so sure about this. There are abortion advertisements on billboards in Arkansas and even pro-life protests but they don’t generally make the daily news. I wonder if the media didn’t pick up on the story until a suit was brought forth.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Whack-a-Mole

In your view there is nothing, as long as it is true, which you can not publicly announce to the world? The other person(s) be damned?

Morally, no. Legally, mostly.

[billfish678]

@TreacherousCretin

This is a very interesting thread. Begging forgiveness from those of you who might be irritated by such a stupid question:

Suppose “Nani” declares that Mr. Douche was not the father.

Would that have a significant impact on Mr. D’s legal position?

.

Lets assume this is what actually happened in the real world:

One extreme. They dated/fucked regularly for a significant period of time. She told him he was the only guy in her life (or actually was). She actually became pregant or told him she was.

Other extreme. They exchanged one email through harmony.com

How much can you “prove” in a court of law towards one scenario vs the opposite one. Once you’ve done that, when do the guy accussations become reasonable/factual vs “its all in head”/irrisponsible gossip?

IMO that aspect of this would quickly become another one of those he said/she said/what others testify to sorta things. Though I guess its possible he/she/a doctor might have genetic sample that would reveal the absolute truth.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Dietrich_K

Have you seen pictures of the guy? It’s a flat out fucking miracle that he got a woman to fuck him in the first place.

In all fairness, the chick isn’t exactly a looker, either.

[Boyo_Jim]

We are all better off without the hideous baby-like creature.

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

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.

I wonder why the First Amendment wasn’t a defense in that case?

I know! Because that case was against Facebook Ireland, and not litigated under US law.

Others have been sued for reviews they have posted online.

Yes. I wonder what happened in that case?

Answer: dismissed. With prejudice. Because the First Amendment protected her posting.

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.

I agree that it isn’t. I also believe that the First Amendment is a high bar to overcome for a hopeful litigant.

[cosmosdan]

Is there any truth to the rumor that she found out he was a member of the Westboro Baptists shortly after discovering she was pregnant?

[TreacherousCretin]

@billfish678

Lets assume this is what actually happened in the real world:

One extreme. They dated/fucked regularly for a significant period of time. She told him he was the only guy in her life (or actually was). She actually became pregant or told him she was.

Other extreme. They exchanged one email through harmony.com

How much can you “prove” in a court of law towards one scenario vs the opposite one. Once you’ve done that, when do the guy accussations become reasonable/factual vs “its all in head”/irrisponsible gossip?

IMO that aspect of this would quickly become another one of those he said/she said/what others testify to sorta things. Though I guess its possible he/she/a doctor might have genetic sample that would reveal the absolute truth.

Well put. Now, let’s assume this is what happens next in the real world: If Nani says Bill Board (giggle) wasn’t the father, is she legally bound to reveal any further information at all?

Bill is assuming he was the father. IF that were to become an important issue in Nani’s lawsuit, who would have to prove or disprove what?

Again- I don’t mean to sound argumentative. I HATE arguments, but this thread has really pulled me in.

.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

I wonder why the First Amendment wasn’t a defense in that case?

I know! Because that case was against Facebook Ireland, and not litigated under US law.

My bad. :smack:

I linked the wrong article. Sorry about that.

Here is the article I meant to link:

Though blogger John (Johnny Northside) Hoff told the truth when he linked ex-community leader Jerry Moore to a high-profile mortgage fraud, the scathing blog post that got Moore fired justifies $60,000 in damages, a Hennepin County jury decided Friday.

<snip>

North Minneapolis politicians and personalities, many of whom took the stand, watched the trial closely. So did First Amendment scholars and free-speech advocates who were concerned about the suit’s effect on “citizen journalism.”

SOURCE: http://www.startribune.com/local/117805398.html

@Bricker

Yes. I wonder what happened in that case?

Answer: dismissed. With prejudice. Because the First Amendment protected her posting.

Lawsuits going after negative reviews are more common than just the two examples I gave.

Also, as noted doctors are taking a new route to prevent what they deem bad reviews (or any reviews technically) from appearing by making you sign your rights over.

If that works I can see it becoming boiler plate for any business to include wherever possible. Here is a report (video) of other businesses trying to force a consumer gag order on patrons.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Morally, no. Legally, mostly.

Legally the law disagrees with you.

You can argue that the law cited in post #68 is a bad one if you want to.

[billfish678]

@TreacherousCretin

Bill is assuming he was the father. IF that were to become an important issue in Nani’s lawsuit, who would have to prove or disprove what?

.

My non legal expert WAG? He says he thinks it is. He give his reasons why he thinks that. Jury goes from there.

Here is one corner I think would be fairly straightforward. Lets say he has plenty of witnesses where she claims its his. But DNA evidence revealed at trial proves it isnt. My guess is he aint going to be held liable for not knowing the actual truth (though I’d suspect the bill boards would need to come down).

[Whack-a-Mole]

@billfish678

My non legal expert WAG? He says he thinks it is. He give his reasons why he thinks that. Jury goes from there.

Here is one corner I think would be fairly straightforward. Lets say he has plenty of witnesses where she claims its his. But DNA evidence revealed at trial proves it isnt. My guess is he aint going to be held liable for not knowing the actual truth (though I’d suspect the bill boards would need to come down).

I’d agree (WAG here too).

I cannot see how someone could be held liable for information they believed, with good reason, to be true but wasn’t (unless the other side can prove a callous disregard for the truth).

[Acsenray]

@Whack-a-Mole

I’d agree (WAG here too).

I cannot see how someone could be held liable for information they believed, with good reason, to be true but wasn’t (unless the other side can prove a callous disregard for the truth).

Truth really isn’t an issue in an invasion of privacy claim.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Acsenray

Truth really isn’t an issue in an invasion of privacy claim.

I think they are still on about a defamation claim. Not sure though.