Angry Ex-Boyfriend Greg Fultz's Abortion Billboard: Freedom Of Speech Or Invasion Of Privacy?

ALAMOGORDO, N.M. -- A New Mexico man's decision to lash out with a billboard ad saying his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes has touched off a legal debate over free speech and privacy rights.

The sign on Alamogordo's main thoroughfare shows 35-year-old Greg Fultz holding the outline of an infant. The text reads, "This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!"

Fultz's ex-girlfriend has taken him to court for harassment and violation of privacy. A domestic court official has recommended the billboard be removed.

But Fultz's attorney argues the order violates his client's free speech rights.

"As distasteful and offensive as the sign may be to some, for over 200 years in this country the First Amendment protects distasteful and offensive speech," Todd Holmes said.

The woman's friends say she had a miscarriage, not an abortion, according to a report in the Albuquerque Journal.

Holmes disputes that, saying his case is based on the accuracy of his client's statement.

"My argument is: What Fultz said is the truth," Holmes said.

The woman's lawyer said she had not discussed the pregnancy with her client. But for Ellen Jessen, whether her client had a miscarriage or an abortion is not the point. The central issue is her client's privacy and the fact that the billboard has caused severe emotional distress, Jessen said.

"Her private life is not a matter of public interest," she told the Alamogordo Daily News.

Jessen says her client's ex-boyfriend has crossed the line.

"Nobody is stopping him from talking about father's rights. ... but a person can't invade someone's private life."

For his part, Holmes invoked the U.S. Supreme Court decision from earlier this year concerning the Westboro Baptist Church, which is known for its anti-gay protests at military funerals and other high-profile events. He believes the high court's decision to allow the protests, as hurtful as they are, is grounds for his client to put up the abortion billboard.

"Very unpopular offensive speech," he told the Alamogordo Daily News. "The Supreme Court, in an 8 to 1 decision, said that is protected speech."

Holmes says he is going to fight the order to remove the billboard through a District Court appeal.

Comments

[askmeificare]

10:59 AM on 06/24/2011

Since the female was not identified by name or picture, how is this an invasion of privacy?

[SteveDenver]

11:50 PM on 06/10/2011

To StupidGregFultz:

Your "choice" ENDED when your sperm left your body. You had the choice of it going into a condom, but you didn't make that choice. You have a choice of getting married, or a choice of discussing family planning ahead of time. You had plenty of choices.

The pregnancy was not "our" baby, it was her body and her pregnancy. And apparently you were to stay "out" of it.

Her choice is none of your business, no matter how much your American male control complex tells you it is.

Make your choices carefully in the future.

[anthonybrown]

03:04 PM on 07/07/2011

And if the woman fails to make her choices carefully? No problem! Just go down and get another abortion and have more sex. After all, condoms reduce pleasure!

[SueEll]

01:46 PM on 07/12/2011

Fanned & Faved & Followin'.

[leskataus]

03:15 AM on 06/10/2011

I live in that area and am familiar with the story. Both my daughters know the young woman involved. They say she is 18 years old and has a mild disability. He is a 35 year old man who is known to hang around the local high school and the NMSU-A campus in the hopes of dating teenage girls. When he had the billboard put up, he did not know if the young woman had an abortion. He created a fictious organization using the letters of her name. This is libel, pure and simple, and he is no hero. It absolutely turns my stomach whenever I see this billboard.

[Naithom]

03:30 PM on 06/10/2011

He so needs to go to court over this since the age of consent is 18 in NM. His ex-wife was 16 when they started dating and if this young woman was as well, then he needs to go to jail for statutory rape.

[Naithom]

03:46 PM on 06/10/2011

Given the fact that the age of consent is 18 and that there is a possibility that this girl's disability might have made her more vulnerable, I would think that this information needs to be made known to the Alamagordo DA so they can ascertain whether more serious charges need to be considered against Mr. Fultz.

http://www.da.state.nm.us/districts/twelfth/index.html

[Elizabeth Murdock]

10:01 PM on 06/09/2011

'He probably has a history of being abusive and she a history of being abused unfortunately I dont want to see what he has done put up on a board but he looks deranged...

[Naithom]

03:35 PM on 06/10/2011

Interesting that you should mention that. His ex-wife is speaking up and it's quite fascinating. Apparently, she was 16 at the time he started dating her (he being 23). There's also information about him stalking a 13 year old. (The age of consent in NM is 18 and he can be brought up on charges if he did anything sexually prior to the 18th birthday.)

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979429551

[b4pangea]

09:46 PM on 06/09/2011

Yeah. 'Cause THAT'S the guy you want to go ahead and have a baby with.

[Naithom]

01:46 AM on 06/09/2011

For the men who were cheering this guy on, read his Facebook statements and tell us again how this man would be a loving father.

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979418806

This kinda cinches why she was able to get an order of protection.

[onwisconsin]

09:43 PM on 06/09/2011

Thanks for that link. This guy is scary. I hope the young woman gets protection.

[Naithom]

03:50 PM on 06/10/2011

He's scarier than we first thought - read Leskataus's post above us. He is known to cruise high schools looking for girls to date and while the young woman in question was 18, she has a mild disability.

Also read what Fultz's ex-wife has to say. She was 16 and he was 23 when they began dating.

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979429551

[alienator]

07:09 PM on 06/08/2011

i recently posted the following:

"this kind of thing has always been a conundrum for me... while i believe in the right to choose, is it ONLY the right of the woman?... if she chooses to terminate, then the man has to live with that... if she decides not to terminate, then the man is REQUIRED to support a child that he may not have wanted to begin with... does the man not have the right to also make a choice?

i'm not arguing for or against either party involved..­. i just don't know the answers"

the reason that i did post it is because some 20 years ago i was seeing a girl and she became pregnant... she later snuck-around behind my back and had an abortion... i later found out about it from a friend of hers... words are useless in trying to describe the emotions i went trough... however i do believe in choice, but when two people create, why does one person choose.
thanks for everyone's feedback

[synergie]

09:58 PM on 06/08/2011

Because only one person is hosting said creation in their own system.

[takis4756]

12:06 AM on 06/09/2011

You've had a day to think about it, so now propose how you could have been given any more choice on the matter that would not amount to a veto?

[freegeg]

05:11 PM on 06/08/2011

The woman's name isn't even on the billboard. She is they one putting her private life in the public sphere.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/jilted-exboyfriend-puts-up-abortion-billboard-20110608-1frju.html

[takis4756]

12:03 AM on 06/09/2011

Anyone who knows her in her community, which is the community that really matters since she sees them on a regular basis, would know it's her being referred to on that billboard regardless of her coming out nationally.

The ex-boyfriend's photo is there and it provides a time period that indicates that he was with the mother 11 months ago. Reasonable people would determine that means it is her.

[Naithom]

01:59 AM on 06/09/2011

Actually he named the non-profit organization named on the billboard after her. Claiming his girlfriend kil.led their baby and then putting her name under that statement is pretty clear.

[leskataus]

03:23 AM on 06/10/2011

The initials of that non-profit organization is her name.

[RatchBrown2013]

03:45 PM on 06/08/2011

Um, no. the constitution does not protect offensive speech like this. And considering that we and Mr. Fultz don't know whether or not she had a miscarriage, this could very well be slander. Sucks to be him, but you don't get to intimidate a woman into having your child and then shame her when she aborts it/miscarries it. Should she maybe have discussed it with him? Yes, but we don't know their situation and no woman has to justify to anyone why she didn't want to raise a child.

[leskataus]

03:25 AM on 06/10/2011

He's a creep who likes to date girls who are only half his age. He's 35 years old and the victim is 18.

[Greg Comlish]

03:26 PM on 06/08/2011

Freedom of speech means freedom for other people to say things that you don't like. This guy is a sexist jerk, but unless he is lying then he has the legal right to be a sexist jerk.

[Stephen a Fazekas]

06:11 PM on 06/08/2011

He does not have the legal right to threaten to kill her and stalk her like he has for a year
http://s1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd516/whtrbt2011/?albumv

[Greg Comlish]

06:40 PM on 06/08/2011

You're right. He doesn't have the right to stalk her and threaten her safety.

[Naithom]

02:04 AM on 06/09/2011

He admitted that he didn't know whether she had an abortion or a miscarriage in another interview.

http://www.fox26medford.com/entertainment/kiah-online-dish-dumped-boyfriend-abortion-billboard-story,0,791239.story

Because he admitted he didn't know the circumstances, this situation became, not a free speech issue but a libel issue because he knew he made a claim about her which was potentially harmful when he knew he didn't have all the information.

[anthonybrown]

03:13 PM on 06/08/2011

ANITAJ, you wrote "Physician assisted suicide is only available in limited areas to people who have been diagnosed with terminal conditions­. More than one medical opinion is required. To the best of my knowledge, a bruised ego would not qualify one to utilize this type of service, nor would I support it if it did."

My question is: Why not? If you believe in the "my body, my choice" principle, what does it matter what reason I wish to have physician-assisted suicide? It is MY body, so it should be MY choice?

You are a hypocrite when you oppose me making this private medical decision about MY body and ONLY my body, but blithely say a different private medical decision, that involves TWO bodies (not to mention the father) is nobody's business.

So do you really believe in personal autonomy and a woman's freedom of choice, or is that just a farce that makes for a clever bumper sticker slogan ("Get your rosaries off my ovaries!")

[synergie]

07:30 PM on 06/09/2011

I can't find your other post, so I'll just respond to this rant, since you're simply repeating the same thing over and over again.

You keep bringing up this non sequitur, totally out of context and with no relevance to anything being discussed or anything brought up by anyone you are actually responding to.

Physician assisted suicide has absolutely nothing to do with reproductive rights, nothing at all. MY question is why do you keep dragging it in? Has someone suggested that one has no right to privacy or to make decisions regarding one's treatment with one's doctor according to the standards of care? No one OTHER than yourself makes such an assertion, so why do you keep whipping out this strawman?

If you have a terminal illness and you wish to seek assistance from your physician, then by all means go ahead, and should that not be available, I'm sure you can figure out numerous other methods that will also result in the same outcome. Who's trying to keep you from exercising your rights to do whatever you wish with your own body?

I don't think you understand what the word hypocrite means, since you've not used it correctly in a single instance. When you introduce a strawman, assume your opponents position and then proceed to rant. that's not hypocrisy, that's poor argument on your part.

Abortion and Physician assisted suicide are not equivalent, your assertions to link them are false. You make literally no sense whatsoever.

[blaqntelligence]

10:48 AM on 06/10/2011

In the grip of hysteria, anthonybrown is sharing far more than he/she/it is aware. I suspect this is a "victim" of a woman who've made some choices this poster does not agree with...I just cannot figure out what.
The anger vacillates between outraged indignation at a woman for having an abortion and outraged indignation that a man is forced to pay child support for 216 months.
I can only conclude two things:
1. The woman is 100% responsible for birth control but should not be allowed to have an abortion.
2. The man should not be forced to pay child support.
IMHO a wise woman would run from this type at hello.

[anitaj]

01:18 PM on 06/15/2011

Nicely said. Faved. I wish I could re-fan you.

[anitaj]

01:18 PM on 06/15/2011

Your basic assumption that a fetus is a person underlies our difference of opinion. Both of the medical decisions you reference involve a single patient and the relevant medical services providers. These are matters of personal conscience for both the patient and the physician.

Your suggestion that physician-assisted suicide would be an appropriate response to being stood up for the prom or failing an exam does a disservice to the dialogue by minimizing the pain of the terminally ill.

[anthonybrown]

03:00 PM on 07/07/2011

Why are you restricting it to the terminally ill? Should EVERYONE have the choice to make this private medical decision?

[Sergeant]

03:03 PM on 06/08/2011

The court defined a woman's right to have an abortion. Even that has limitations based on the trimester.

The next test will be when a "person" is created. That has not been determined. What will happen is that the court will support a woman's right to have an abortion. And will define when a person is created. A woman will not have the right to infanticide or homocide.

[takis4756]

12:05 AM on 06/09/2011

You're about 20 years or a planned parenthood v. casey behind on precedent.

Yes, the State's can regulate abortion services when a fetus is viable. Before then, they cannot place any regulation that places an "undue burden" on the mother's rights. So your statement of "person" is just a synonym for "viability" from a case 20 years old.

[anthonybrown]

08:30 AM on 06/09/2011

But Doe v. Bolton basically said the states cannot regulate in the third trimester, so that part of Roe no longer applies.

[Sergeant]

07:46 PM on 06/09/2011

And abortion was illegal. Things change with time. And prenatal viability is at an incredible point due to medical science.

[synergie]

07:31 PM on 06/09/2011

Personhood is conferred upon live birth with the first breath.

[onwisconsin]

09:51 PM on 06/09/2011

Exactly

[Cananna]

02:47 PM on 06/08/2011

Well, I don't think we ever have to worry about Greg Fultz ever having a sexual relationship ever again.

[ferguson7788]

03:00 PM on 06/08/2011

I dont think you ever have to ever use ever again.

[anthonybrown]

03:14 PM on 06/08/2011

You mean, not ever?

[MyrtleJune]

02:24 PM on 06/08/2011

Unless he has a signed consent to release her personal private medical information to the public, then his is guilty of invasion of privacy and sexual harassment. It is not his body.

She can further hold him accountable for no protection. That is implied consent to the abortion outcome. He cannot FORCE her to have a baby and that's what we're talking about here. It is HER CHOICE.

HE ABDICATED ANY SAY IN THE MATTER WHEN HE CHOSE TO NOT WEAR PROTECTION OR ENGAGED IN ANY SEXUAL INTERACTION WITH HER. Period.

[anthonybrown]

03:17 PM on 06/08/2011

Yes, he "abdicated any say in the matter when he chose to not wear protection or engaged in any sexual interaction with her."

However, the woman can have as much condomless sex as she wishes, and get as many abortions as she wishes, abdicating no "say" whatsoever. If a man produces an offspring, he has to pay 216 months of child support. If a woman does, she can kill the child, give the child up for adoption, have the child.

Hear that men/ Be responsible, or you'll pay the price! Hear that, women! Fornicate away! Planned Parenthood is happily awaiting your business.

[MyrtleJune]

05:36 PM on 06/08/2011

An abortion is a medical procedure not killing like your wars and gun-love. Get ahold of yourself! It is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

Anthony Brown IF YOU DON'T LIKE ABORTION, THEN DON'T HAVE ONE!!!!! THAT'S YOUR CHOICE! NOW STAY OUT OF A WOMAN'S BUSINESS WITH HER PRIVATE DOCTOR ABOUT HER PERSONALLY OWNED AND PRIVATELY OPERATED BODY!!!!

Seek help for your control freakishness and misogyny that woman can't make decisions for themselves.

[fearisinthemind]

05:37 PM on 06/08/2011

Ha-ha. Mummy issues much?

[mikesells4u]

06:56 PM on 06/08/2011

The billboard did not mention her name in any way shape or form. She is the one telling the world who she is, not him. It is a very generic billboard until she jumps up and starts shouting "that's me he is talking about".

[synergie]

10:05 PM on 06/08/2011

Um, her friends and family are quite well aware of who he's talking about, given that he's given an age to that baby that he misses so much, but was unwilling to support.

[Naithom]

02:18 AM on 06/09/2011

Actually, he named his organization after her, using her first name as the acronym.

[MMISSbee]

12:56 PM on 06/08/2011

Check Greg Fultz's Twitter.
He's got stuff on there like this gem...
"What do you tell a woman with 2 black eyes? Nothing she's already been told twice."
These are the "jokes" he tells

Yes he would certainly make a wonderful father.

[Cananna]

03:25 PM on 06/08/2011

And something is off with a 35 year old who dates teenagers.

[Naithom]

02:22 AM on 06/09/2011

Yeah, searching out someone barely legal, having anger management issues, having an order of protection against him due to domestic violence, stalking - this has less to do with him wanting to be a father and more to do with him wanting full control over the other person in the relationship.

[leskataus]

03:35 AM on 06/10/2011

Both my daughters are familiar with him because he's also tried to hit on them as well. He hangs around the high school and local college campus in the hopes of picking up young girls.