I'm pretty sure putting a billboard up regarding his lack of family planning and religious views (abortion bad, pre-marital sex good) is winning this guy some dates.
WBC picketing is also bullying/harassment/mental abuse. They should have no right to interfere with a private ceremony of private citizens.Shocking wrote:
So what makes free speech worth limiting in this case and the westboro church funeral pickets and such okay?
>Click Link
>no image
>Alt+F4
>no image
>Alt+F4
everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... seriously. ♥
What if a different ex GF of his had an abortion as well and he wasn't even talking about her?
No Name No Crime..
Is it still stupid, yes it is, but we allow a group to spend tons of money saying the world was going to end. That's more damaging then this and nothing happened to them.
No Name No Crime..
Is it still stupid, yes it is, but we allow a group to spend tons of money saying the world was going to end. That's more damaging then this and nothing happened to them.
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2011-06-07 14:39:28)
No not more damaging because nothing they did or said was made to be personal, drawing unwanted attention to any one person.cpt.fass1 wrote:
What if a different ex GF of his had an abortion as well and he wasn't even talking about her?
No Name No Crime..
Is it still stupid, yes it is, but we allow a group to spend tons of money saying the world was going to end. That's more damaging then this and nothing happened to them.
Are you trying to play devils advocate? Mass advertising that the end of the world is going to end and pulling people away from their familys and responsiblities because they belived you is way more damaging then simply getting a billboard that might not even be targeted at that girl?lowing wrote:
No not more damaging because nothing they did or said was made to be personal, drawing unwanted attention to any one person.cpt.fass1 wrote:
What if a different ex GF of his had an abortion as well and he wasn't even talking about her?
No Name No Crime..
Is it still stupid, yes it is, but we allow a group to spend tons of money saying the world was going to end. That's more damaging then this and nothing happened to them.
If you read the artical her friend said she had a miscarrage not an abortion.
The end of times people lack malicious intent. They're just misguided.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I suppose one could consider it defamation in a civil case, but the most I see happening is a court ordered removal of the billboard.
I don't think the guy's a "tool", I think he was just pissed. I'd have a pretty negative reaction if I thought someone killed my baby without my consideration or consent too.
I don't think the guy's a "tool", I think he was just pissed. I'd have a pretty negative reaction if I thought someone killed my baby without my consideration or consent too.
Last edited by Blue Herring (2011-06-07 16:16:44)
It's not libellous if it's true though, so you couldn't consider it defamation. If were untrue, she could sue him.Blue Herring wrote:
I suppose one could consider it defamation in a civil case, but the most I see happening is a court ordered removal of the billboard.
I don't think the guy's a "tool", I think he was just pissed. I'd have a pretty negative reaction if I thought someone killed my baby without my consideration or consent too.
Ultimately, if you do something and someone else knows about it, they can talk about it, publicise it, whatever the hell they like. Clearly the guy in this instance is a prick, but this is a really, really clear cut case. He has done nothing wrong (other than being a twat).
This is how privacy laws should work. Ultimately the importance of free speech is far greater than the importance of individuals privacy. Look at the sort of bullshit problems you get with privacy laws (which don't work btw), superinjunctions and hyperinjuctions just lead to more problems than you had in the first place (nor do they make any sense).
more legal experts
Tu Stultus Es
I can't believe you said that.lowing wrote:
^^^this is exactly right. It is a form of bullying/harassment/mental abuse, and should not be protected.Jay wrote:
It's simply another form of bullying...........
I believe in free speech. I also believe in consequences.
I actually totally agree.
Billboards are meant for public interest, whether it be advertising, community awareness or even sending misguided religious messages. This was more about causing damage to her than a more general stance against abortion. If the guy had said something personal about HIMSELF to get his message across instead of his ex, then that would be fine. And it appears questionable she even had an abortion.
she should post a billboard with a picture of herself with a black eye "this is what happened when I didnt make dinner one time"
Tu Stultus Es
YOu hit it on the head " mass advertising", NOT directed at a single person in order to harass them embarrass them or bully them. It was a "warning" some heeded it, the vast majority did not.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Are you trying to play devils advocate? Mass advertising that the end of the world is going to end and pulling people away from their familys and responsiblities because they belived you is way more damaging then simply getting a billboard that might not even be targeted at that girl?lowing wrote:
No not more damaging because nothing they did or said was made to be personal, drawing unwanted attention to any one person.cpt.fass1 wrote:
What if a different ex GF of his had an abortion as well and he wasn't even talking about her?
No Name No Crime..
Is it still stupid, yes it is, but we allow a group to spend tons of money saying the world was going to end. That's more damaging then this and nothing happened to them.
If you read the artical her friend said she had a miscarrage not an abortion.
I will disagree. Privacy laws are more important than free speech. I do not think do not think you have the right to trespass on another's right to life liberty or happiness, for sheer maliciousness. Free speech I do not think is meant to include yelling fire in a theater, or bullying and harassing another person for the personal gratification in watching them suffer.Bertster7 wrote:
It's not libellous if it's true though, so you couldn't consider it defamation. If were untrue, she could sue him.Blue Herring wrote:
I suppose one could consider it defamation in a civil case, but the most I see happening is a court ordered removal of the billboard.
I don't think the guy's a "tool", I think he was just pissed. I'd have a pretty negative reaction if I thought someone killed my baby without my consideration or consent too.
Ultimately, if you do something and someone else knows about it, they can talk about it, publicise it, whatever the hell they like. Clearly the guy in this instance is a prick, but this is a really, really clear cut case. He has done nothing wrong (other than being a twat).
This is how privacy laws should work. Ultimately the importance of free speech is far greater than the importance of individuals privacy. Look at the sort of bullshit problems you get with privacy laws (which don't work btw), superinjunctions and hyperinjuctions just lead to more problems than you had in the first place (nor do they make any sense).
"Mendozaaaaaaaaaaaa!" - McBainburnzz wrote:
Lisa Mendoza is a cunt.
google says she could be one of several pretty young ladies
Tu Stultus Es
So my point is confirmed. That she might not be the lady who he was targeting and has no claim..eleven bravo wrote:
google says she could be one of several pretty young ladies
you really arent the sharpest knife in the drawer
Tu Stultus Es
Where is the bill board located? I know that if I was driving on the highway I would not bother reading it. Too many words. (safety first)
Well that really narrows it down a bitWhite Sands Boulevard near First …
Last edited by Spearhead (2011-06-07 21:18:40)
Level of care is really nile. He spent the money and it's his right to do it. As John said it's her right to retaliate and it shouldn't be in the courts, but I guess one of three million lawyers in this country needs money.
So if I put up 20 billboards saying your family are all idiots of the highest order and your dad is a paedophile, you would not have a problem with this?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Level of care is really nile. He spent the money and it's his right to do it. As John said it's her right to retaliate and it shouldn't be in the courts, but I guess one of three million lawyers in this country needs money.
Sweet.
I would hope that "intent" here is more important than the letter of the law. What is he trying to achieve with the Billboard.
Also I echo the sentiment that free speech should not be without consequences.
Also I echo the sentiment that free speech should not be without consequences.
Indeed. If he had used it as an example in a non-specific sense to her as an anti abortion message, that's ok. But he's made it a personal statement directed towards her. Not cool.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
I would hope that "intent" here is more important than the letter of the law. What is he trying to achieve with the Billboard.
+1Also I echo the sentiment that free speech should not be without consequences.
But that's libel so it's a whole different case.Jaekus wrote:
So if I put up 20 billboards saying your family are all idiots of the highest order and your dad is a paedophile, you would not have a problem with this?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Level of care is really nile. He spent the money and it's his right to do it. As John said it's her right to retaliate and it shouldn't be in the courts, but I guess one of three million lawyers in this country needs money.
Sweet.
And the dude posting the billboard in the OP isn't?ghettoperson wrote:
But that's libel so it's a whole different case.Jaekus wrote:
So if I put up 20 billboards saying your family are all idiots of the highest order and your dad is a paedophile, you would not have a problem with this?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Level of care is really nile. He spent the money and it's his right to do it. As John said it's her right to retaliate and it shouldn't be in the courts, but I guess one of three million lawyers in this country needs money.
Sweet.