Protected Expression or Privacy Violation — Discuss…

ht_abortion_billboard_mw_110607_wg(Source)

Acceptable third alternative: Crazy-ass zombie cannibal worshiper needs something better to do with his time.

This entry was posted on Saturday, June 11th, 2011 at 9:29 am and is filed under ass hat, Civil Liberties, feminism, First Amendment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

17 Responses to Protected Expression or Privacy Violation — Discuss…

  1. DIS says:
    June 11, 2011 at 9:33 pm

    If it’s the mother’s picture it is a privacy violation, if it’s someone who agreed to be in the picture, it’s protected speech

    he also could have used a picture of himself and it would have been fine

  2. Dowew says:
    June 11, 2011 at 10:35 pm

    Are you seriously arguing that this does not constitute harassment? His made his organization’s acronym spell out his ex-girlfriend’s name. Its really creepy. Also, isn’t it defamation/libel to call her a killer? Perhaps you can explain.

  3. Another Thought says:
    June 11, 2011 at 11:51 pm

    Truth is a defense to defamation.

  4. Dowew says:
    June 12, 2011 at 12:29 am

    This might help paint of picture suggesting this man is not entirely stable. http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979433099

  5. Dowew says:
    June 12, 2011 at 12:36 am

    It looks like he changed the name of his “organization from NANI (the name of his wife) to CANI to get around the harassment claim. I still say this is harassment if not a privacy violation.

    Furthermore, as for truth being a defense to defamation : the fetus was not alive (ie not a person under US law). It cannot, therefore, by “killed” by the mother. Therefore, she has not killed their baby. Therefore not truth and not defended.

    I hope she wins her lawsuit. This man is vile.

    • MikeZ says:
      June 13, 2011 at 10:38 am

      Technically speaking a fetus not being a person only means that it could not be “murdered”. I’m not so sure that a fetus isn’t considered alive. I’d guess the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” would beg to differ. Still for defamation purposes wouldn’t the applicable layman definitions of the word be applicable as well as any legal ones. I kill mosquitos all the time, I killed lots of bacteria last month when I was on some antibiotics. If the word kill can be used for streptococcus then it probably can also be used for a fetus truthfully.

      I would say the name of his organization would be considered harassment but I’d guess nobody would have picked up on that based on the billboard alone. Seems like just a guy being an asshole, and not much legally todo.

  6. Dowew says:
    June 12, 2011 at 12:38 am

    Another post about this http://blog.ohinternet.com/6440/greg-fultz-creep/

  7. Dowew says:
    June 12, 2011 at 12:43 am

    What a douchebag. Hes trying to get himself trending on twitter so hes adding the hashtag #gregfultzisacreep to some of his tweets! LOL

  8. Dowew says:
    June 12, 2011 at 1:02 am

    Lets put it this way, if he bottled his crazy in a letter and sent it to her that would be harassment yes? Why is blowing up the thing and putting it on a billboard make it any different?

    Im not a lawyer, but two things strike me

    1) This is clearly speaking about a individual who is not a public figure about matters which are not public.
    2) HE PUT HER FUCKING NAME AS AN ACRONYM WHEN HE WROTE “CREATED FOR NANI”. Although he changed it on his new billboard he has left the original on his facebook page.

    Dont those things add up to a privacy violation?

  9. Scott C says:
    June 12, 2011 at 7:25 am

    Presuming all necessary parties are able & willing, of course this should be allowed.
    Our kids need to learn how to spot fools somehow.

  10. Deez says:
    June 12, 2011 at 10:12 am

    Uh, a fetus is very much alive and can be killed by any reasonable definition of alive. It is not a person, but neither is a cat, yet you can kill a cat and a cat IS alive.

    You would have a point if the billboard said that the mother mudered the fetus, but it does not.

    I am more curious if this is a hippaa violation, and if that would put hippaa into conflict with the first amendment.

    • jfischer1975 says:
      June 12, 2011 at 10:42 am

      HIPAA would only apply if he was a health care professional — like the woman’s doctor, or an employee of her insurance carrier.

      Regulated professions often have regulations limiting speech. There’s no First Amendment violation because the government isn’t forcing anyone to become a doctor.

  11. G Thompson says:
    June 13, 2011 at 1:59 am

    You know I have a feeling no-one is seeing the bigger picture here..

    The mother allegedly aborted the fetus that had this guys genetic code in it, thereby removing his genetic stupidity from the gene pool in this instant, which allows her to at some later stage to have children NOT with him. Also him posting this billboard further shows any other women why they should not allow him to procreate with them either.

    This woman knowingly (if the allegation is correct), and this moron unknowingly have now done a service to humanity as a whole. They should be awarded, her with our gratitude him with hopefully a Darwin Award

  12. Harry Mauron says:
    June 13, 2011 at 9:22 am

    I’m not sure what sort of “harassment” this might be, but intentional infliction of emotional distress seems plausible. In some parts of the country, this might not be “outrageous” though.

    Reading more background, Daddy Fulz seems to be attempting to duck IIED and libel by claiming that the billboard is fiction and NOT true. Unseemly until you find that it’s based on his former girlfriend’s statement that she miscarried and didn’t abort.

  13. nani vagi says:
    June 13, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    I’m just impressed that a dude who looks like that was able to gain access to a living vagina.

  14. andrews says:
    June 16, 2011 at 7:59 am

    It would appear that an allegation that the mother “killed our child” sets forth enough facts to conclude that a crime occurred, to wit, infanticide. Those facts may turn out to be untruthful, if the putative mother in fact miscarred before a child was born, but at least you have the allegation of some sort of killing.

    I’m not sure there is a claim of murder since there is no statement that she intentionally killed the child. The accusation could be read to be manslaughter if the killing were not intentional.

%d bloggers like this: