There is an interesting free speech case out of Otero County, New Mexico. Hearing commissioner Darrell Brantley of the Otero County Domestic Violence Court has recommended an order of protection for Nani Lawrence against Greg A. Fultz after Fultz paid for a pro-life billboard criticizing the abortion of their alleged child. Brantley also wants the billboard taken down as a violation of Lawrence’s right of privacy.
It now goes to Twelfth Judicial District Judge James W. Counts, who is expected who is expected to sign the order of protection and an order the removal of the billboard.
The billboard shows Fultz, 35, holding what appears to the outline of a baby in his arms with the statement, “This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!” Notably, the billboard does not name Nani Lawrence. However, in a rather transparent reference, Fultz displays the endorsement of an organization he created called National Association of Needed Information. That’s right N.A.N.I.
Fultz later removed the endorsement of N.A.N.I. from the billboard.
Lawrence’s attorney Ellen Jessen said the order of protection was recommended under the Family Violence Protection Act.
The issue was closer when N.A.N.I. appeared on the sign, but it becomes a serious question of free speech if it is a statement from a father opposed to the abortion of the child. This is personal information for both the father and mother. Presumably, either part has a right to discuss his or her own experience with abortion. If true, it is not defamation. The right to privacy includes the tort of intrusion against seclusion and the public disclosure of embarrassing private facts.
The intrusion tort doesn’t fit because this is the disclosure of a fact disclosed to the father. The public disclosure tort runs into the same problem as a disclosed fact without any agreement to keep the information confidential. More importantly, this is a claimed injury or harm to the father coupled with a strong philosophical or religious view that he wishes to discuss publicly. Just as the original Jane Doe has discussed her abortion (and later opposition to abortion), a father should have the same right to publicly discuss his own experience. His use of the name was unnecessary and problematic. However, I am not sure that he could not reveal the name as long as he is speaking truthfully under the common law. The question is the obligation of a former boyfriend to keep the fact of the abortion secret.
There is also the question of balancing the remedy against the right now that the woman’s name is public. Does this mean that Fultz cannot discuss his views and alleged harm in public for the rest of time?
What do you think?
Source: Alamogordo News as first seen on Reddit.
Jonathan Turley
A woman has the right to an abortion. Just like any right you exercise, you may come under scrutiny for it. She wanted an abortion but wanted it kept quiet. Unfortunately, if you do something like this you may come under fire and people close to the situation (the would- be father) spoke out against it-too bad. I’m not necessarily against abortion (though it seems to be used as birth control half the time), but you can’t always keep what you do a secret.
I don’t feel bad for her at all. He had no recourse. He has no say in whether she terminates THEIR child (yes, it was both of theirs). So, he doesn’t have a say in whether it (he/she) lives or dies, and now he can’t even publicly show sorrow or outrage about it? So, what rights does he have? I guess his only recourse is to drown his sorrows in a bottle of liquor. Oh wait, I hope he’s at least 21 or he won’t be able to legally do that either.
Tootie’s just mad because no matter how loudly he/she/it screams, the medical choices of women remain private, legal, and absolutely none of his/her/its business. And it never will be. But do continue the Screech n’ Hollar! It’s been ever so effective with folks here!
I think that an action for defamation still lies here… Truth is a defense to defamation; however, it has not been settled as a matter of law when life actually begins. Had the billboard used the words “decided to not abort our fetus” rather than “decided to not kill our child” the truth of the statement could be readily proven. The idea that abortion is “killing a child” is an anti-choice talking point, NOT a feature of U.S. law.
Alternatively, even if some backwoods judge wants to pretend that abortion is actually murder under the law, action for defamation still lies here because of the lack of specificity in the billboard’s statement: for all a passer-by knows, the sign is referring to the mother killing a living, already-born child.
Toot’s just trying to get into heaven.
@Tootie, what does someone’s political affiliation, or lack therefo have to do with this discussion? As to the real issue,Greg Fultz was told more than once by others his ex-girlfriend did not have an abortion but a miscarriage. So what is your rant now? She deserves this humiliation because “God took her child to a better place”? None of us know what really happened, and apparently neither does that jackass who put up a billboard, not because of his rights as a father but because she left him more than likely. As for you Tootie; the only stupid, evil person I see on here is you.
For women to presume a man has no rights to the life she claims to have all rights to (unless it is born and she insists he pay for it even when she leaves the marriage) is for women to be as stupid and evil as a man who abandons his own children.
Grow up “ladies” (cough).
The main reason leftist women have abortions is because they don’t believe science when it clearly teaches that: SEX LEADS TO BABIES and if you don’t want babies then get fixed or don’t have sex because protection can fail. (That instead of killing it, of course.)
In my generation we learned this lesson via the Birds and Bee’s story. Quaint science, but easily understood even by the not so enlightened or intelligent individuals.
Naturally that excludes liberals, progressives, and Democrat women because they are very dumb, or as it were, too dumb to “get it”. These might be the same people who were hysterical about too much population growth in America, but only when it is done by white folks.
Now that non-whites are the biggest contributors to a large amount of population growth in the USA they are suddenly very quite about overpopulation. Apparently it doesn’t even exist anymore now that whites folks are not doing it and the population numbers are soaring.
Soon the left will be condemning abortion (but for the wrong reason). Praise God anyway. 50 million or so killed with approval of the left and Democrats notwithstanding, it would be a genuine victory for the alleged knuckle-dragging neanderthals on the right.
Nice touch, Democrats. You really are more stupid and evil than you think the right wing GOPers are.
Awesome billboard.
Funny acronym.
This country is full of lunatics
Three thoughts:
@ For whose benefit does the 1st Amendment exist — the speaker or the hearer? I say the hearer. While I may not like what the speaker says, I sure hate the thought that a someone can control what I might want to hear.
@ The 1st Amendment restricts governmental action, not that of private actors. The issue is whether the court can order the removal of the sign. But that doesn’t legal conswquences may not otherwise befall the speaker.
@ While a defamatory statement can serve as the basis of a private cause of action, can a true statement which is not subject to a restriction on disclosure (e.g., proprietary information, HIIPA provisons)? Maybe —
Restatement (2nd) of Torts, section 46, states:
(1) One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress[.]. . .
Would a reasonable hearer find the billboard “extreme and outrageous conduct?” The truth of the statement appears to be immaterial.
This is a death warrant for the woman. we can sit here nice and warm & dry and talk about free speech but this man has just unleashed the screaming monkeys on this woman. It is like the moron Imams that issue a fatwa on someone like Rushdi. It only takes one nut case &, sadly, this issue produces them in abundance.
The odds of this woman being hunted down and killed are near enough to one as to not matter.
Nal
1, June 7, 2011 at 11:39 am
He has a First Amendment right to make an ass out of himself.
She should feel humiliated. Not for having an abortion, but for having sex with him in the first place.
———————————–
Yep
HIPAA does not apply since private individuals are involved. Were it an agency or person, such as one of her doctors or an employee of the doctor or clinic, HIPAA would apply.
A family member who tells other people of another family member’s operation, etc., are not covered under HIPAA. Invasions of privacy are not always illegal.
Since you asked, I think this “person” has put the woman’s life in danger. I trust the court(s) recognize that people are being murdered over this issue. (Note to any anti-choice people lurking, please don’t bother eqating abortion with murder in response to this post, you are wasting your time.)
He has a First Amendment right to make an ass out of himself.
She should feel humiliated. Not for having an abortion, but for having sex with him in the first place.
The guy is no doubt a thug. However, I don’t think we should be picking and choosing among what is and isn’t permitted speech with out a very clear demonstration of the particular speech causing
grievous, irreparable harm. I don’t think this case rises to that standard, despite the viciousness and cruelty of the road sign.
Since abortion is a medical procedure, wouldn’t this violate HIPPA privacy laws?
there is no question but that this is abuse, vengeful, putting that woman (deliberately) in harms way….and why is there doubt about that?
I don’t know what transpired between those 2 parties but you can be sure that this guys behavior has something to do with that woman not carrying that child into such an abusive environment.
Stupid last for how long…..
“This could have been me holding a child if the Father hadn’t had a vasectomy?”
“This could have been my child if the Mother hadn’t had a hysterectomy?”
“This could have been my child if the Father didn’t work in a nuclear power plant.”
“This could have been my child if the Mother wasn’t a post op transsexual.”
Yeah, just not seeing how discussing another person’s medical history via billboard isn’t a form of invasion of privacy.
If Fultz wants a family, he should find a woman who also wants a family and marry her.
This might be difficult, as, since he has aggressively and publicly humiliated the last woman he impregnated, I can’t see a woman wanting to get involved with him at all.
Are our laws really intended to allow people to do this sort of thing? It isn’t political speech and it appears to just be intended to scare a woman because she exercised her personal rights.