Here's the billboard. I'm trying to understand how it's enough an invasion of privacy to strike down someone's free speech, when the person whose privacy is in question isn't named. BTW, the fact that that dude was able to get someone pregnant should give a lot of guys hope.
I'm in favor of the woman's right to choose... But I also think the father has every right to be pissed off and talk about why he's pissed off.
My take is the guy has the right to put up the billboard, but she has the right to sue him and she should win.
Unless there is some privacy statute regarding the right for abortion victime to not have their name or image displayed, I think he's fine, criminally/civilly wise. However, likr previously posted, he may end up on the wrong end of a civil suite anyway.
If he has the right to put up the billboard, why should she win? It sets a bad precedent when someone can sue someone else for insinuations... He didn't even mention her by name on the billboard. This sounds like the lawsuit where the ex-boyfriend of that singer Adele is suing her because she's made a bunch of money off songs that she supposedly wrote about her relationship with him. He believes he should get royalties for inspiring the songs. Fucking terrible. I can't believe what the world is coming to.
I don't believe in abortion, but I also don't think anyone has the right to tell a woman she can't have one. That being said, where are the fathers rights in all of this? He has every right to that child as she does, and for her to do that without his permission should be illegal. I also love how her lawyers are whining about invasion of provacy, and that her personal life isn't for the rest of the world to see. So does this go for actors and athletes as well?
Maybe it should be, but it isn't yet. As far as the privacy, that's my biggest question. If she's not identified, what place is it of hers to say anything? Much less sue?
In the eyes of the law, the fetus isn't viewed as a child; it's no more than a part of the woman's body until it is born. The fact that he contributed to its conception is considered irrelevant. As such, the would-be father has as much legal influence over fate of the fetus as he would over a manicure or hairstyle he had paid for--none.
She wasn't named, so I fail to see the issue. It would seem that he would have caused her more distress if he would have gone to the local truck stops and written on the bathroom walls, "For a good time, call..." with her name and number.
I wonder if those who are "what about the rights of the father" get together and complain/bitch about the same fathers who are dead beat dads and have nothing to do with their children.
I think all of those fathers should be in prison if they don't pay. Any retirement or social security benefits they have earned in their lifetime should immediately go to the mother. Why would that even be related?
because it seems some people (not you necessarily) are more interested in what happens before the baby is born, then after.
As a father, my revulsion for those people has no bottom. How you could create life and then not share in the responsibility for it is the lowest of the low.
Apparently the "sponsor" N.A.N.I. was created by this guy and just so happens to spell the woman's first name. It has since been removed. Another sponsor (not sure which) also asked to be removed when he admitted that he didn't even know if she had an abortion or if it was a miscarriage.
regardless of how dumb this is (and I'm granting that point), if Westboro can picket a funeral spouting that the soldier died b/c God hates a certain behavior, why is this guy's speech any less free?
