|
Post by Kit Walker on Jun 7, 2011 17:56:32 GMT -5
He's a tool...but I wouldn't call it an invasion of her privacy. The alleged prior billboard that had her name on it, now that is an invasion. But This one...doesn't give her name, doesn't give his name, fuck if I saw it I'd think it was fake. You have to know both of them to get its meaning. I'll have to see what the courts rule.
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Jun 7, 2011 18:50:48 GMT -5
Free speech notwithstanding, it was a completely dick move on his part. If I'd been his girlfriend, I think he'd be on a one way trip to meet the undertaker. Just because he didn't put her name of photo in the billboard doesn't mean the people who know them won't know. If any of them are like this dipshit, then the poor girl's going to have to pack up and leave the area or all the pro-lifers will be screaming "MURDERER" at her all day, not to mention death threats and all the other crap that comes with that sort of exposure.
What the hell is wrong with this guy, though? Does he really think that acting like this is actually going DO something other than raise a huge fuss? Listen buddy, in a way I can sympathize, but doing it like this is NOT going to make anything better. All it's going to do is rile up both sides of the pro-lifers and pro-choicers and cause a huge shitload of oversesationalized drama, and make the woman's life a living hell.
Or is this what you're trying to accomplish in the first place? Somehow, it wouldn't surprise me.
Oh and, incidently... I read in an article that the woman claims the baby MISCARRIED and that she DID NOT have an abortion. If that's proven to be true, then this pricks' going to get a hard slamming in court.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 7, 2011 19:45:05 GMT -5
Yeah well now the name is out on the news so it is an invasion of privacy if people know who the victim dated.
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Jun 7, 2011 20:46:21 GMT -5
Yeah well now the name is out on the news so it is an invasion of privacy if people know who the victim dated. Like I say, the court's ruling would be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 7, 2011 21:34:55 GMT -5
Free speech notwithstanding, it was a completely dick move on his part. If I'd been his girlfriend, I think he'd be on a one way trip to meet the undertaker. Just because he didn't put her name of photo in the billboard doesn't mean the people who know them won't know. If any of them are like this dipshit, then the poor girl's going to have to pack up and leave the area or all the pro-lifers will be screaming "MURDERER" at her all day, not to mention death threats and all the other crap that comes with that sort of exposure. What the hell is wrong with this guy, though? Does he really think that acting like this is actually going DO something other than raise a huge fuss? Listen buddy, in a way I can sympathize, but doing it like this is NOT going to make anything better. All it's going to do is rile up both sides of the pro-lifers and pro-choicers and cause a huge shitload of oversesationalized drama, and make the woman's life a living hell. Or is this what you're trying to accomplish in the first place? Somehow, it wouldn't surprise me. Oh and, incidently... I read in an article that the woman claims the baby MISCARRIED and that she DID NOT have an abortion. If that's proven to be true, then this pricks' going to get a hard slamming in court. My guess is she booted his ass, and some people respond very poorly to such. Either being pro life or using it as something to attack her with, this is how this douche nozzle lashes out at her for kicking him out. To me this thing shows just what an immature fuck this asshole is
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jun 7, 2011 22:41:55 GMT -5
There's going too far... and then there's this. Glad she got the hell away from him, he's got that controlling abuser vibe going, big time.
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Jun 7, 2011 23:02:06 GMT -5
Psycho bastard... and it's not even Georgia so she can't kill him in revenge and say he looked at her crossways (Squidbillies reference).
Seriously though, fuck this guy, hard. The Courts, smack him down, then smack him down again HARDER for using a Phelps reference, smack him down a third, harder time for being a douchenozzle and then smack PHELPS down along with his b.s. court ruling.. cause of it being used as precedent to this asshole's b.s.. somehow.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jun 7, 2011 23:34:14 GMT -5
What a fucking asshole.
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Jun 8, 2011 0:17:13 GMT -5
Ahem. It IS an invasion of privacy. Someone's medical history is no one's business but that person and their doctor(s). .. You have no right to broadcast soemone else's medical history in such a public manner or in any manner at all. ESPECIALLY not THIS kind of medical history wherein the person in question is being accused of murder, considering how hot-button an issue abortion is and given how conservative and downright dangerous certain areas of the US are. This is an open invitation for someone to avenge the blastocyst by harming the woman. Someone would see that picture who knows the guy, and knows who the ex girlfriend is, or who knows someone who does. "Hey, who's the guy on that bilboard? Greg knows? Hey Greg, who's the guy in the picture? Frank? Okay. Who was he dating?" Like that. Even without the risk of the woman being hurt, this is still a total violation of privacy. How about this one then...Does 'poorly endowed' count? ![](http://i40.tinypic.com/25uo4s6.jpg) or this one from England ![](http://stuartbruce.biz/images/windowslivewriter/Wifesnewandoldmediarevenge_7B10/billboard_thumb%5B2%5D.jpg) and we've all heard about the proposal billboard...would it be legit to respond accordingly? ![](http://www.adrants.com/images/jennifer_marry_me.jpg) ![](http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban2806l.jpg) or..you know...other stuff... ![](http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban143l.jpg)
|
|
SweetZombieJesus
New Member
Liberal Christian and amateur experimental theologian.
Posts: 38
|
Post by SweetZombieJesus on Jun 8, 2011 1:22:28 GMT -5
*headdesk*
Really, I don't know what else to say. "*headdesk*" seems to capture it all.
Free speech or not, it's still a dick move, though.
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Jun 8, 2011 1:37:10 GMT -5
I am in two minds about this one. On one hand, the fact that no names were mentioned, and no picture of the woman in question was used. I feel that it is not an invasion of privacy. Honestly, it looks like any number of pro-life billboards. However, it has been raised that the people who know the two of them would be able to discern their private lives from the content of the billboard.
I honestly have trouble seeing the impact of the whole aspect that people who knew the people in question would know. However, because he is specifically calling her a murderer, I feel that this does warrant some looking into. As abortion is not considered murder in the US, this is a clear case of libel. However, as no names are given, one could argue that he is just modeling for a pro-life billboard (we all know that's not the case, but it can be used as an argument).
I must agree the ruling on this would be interesting. There are many sides to this story and each will have to be weighed carefully.
Lastly, this is a seriously sick move. My personal opinion is we should have a much much lower court where we can just punch people for doing dick things like this.
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jun 8, 2011 8:11:49 GMT -5
Interestingly, the Associated Press (via that bastion of intelligence: Yahoo News) has a photo of the billboard...that is a little different. beta.news.yahoo.com/jilted-ex-boyfriend-puts-abortion-billboard-194142831.htmlNotice the bottom? "National Association of Needed Information" N.A.N.I.? Now notice the bottom of the billboard in the original post? ![](http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/110607-cani-billboard-8a.grid-8x2.jpg) "Coalition About Needed Information" C.A.N.I. Yeah, it's not speculation or rumor that he used her fucking name in the billboard. The fact that it was taken down means dick, it was still up there for all to see (as evidenced by the fact that there's a fucking PHOTO of it put up on the INTERNET) and so, her rights were, in fact, violated. Also, if the courts do side with this jackhole, I hope she then sues him for libel and harassment.
|
|
|
Post by Bezron on Jun 8, 2011 9:02:48 GMT -5
Having said all of this, there's a difference between broadcasting "MY EX HAS A TINY DICK" just to humiliate someone out of revenge, and saying "MY EX HAD AN ABORTION" in a country where there are still violent anti-choice millitia groups who are MORE than willing to hurt or kill people for so much as taking part in abortion procedures. Not only is this an invasion of this woman's privacy, but it can also be seen as an open invitation to harm or harass her for what is her personal private medical history. I'm not saying it's inevitable, but it's possible and, I daresay, likely. I disagree, there is no difference between the two. Both are private information that is being broadcast in order to hurt and humiliate the person in question. We just find one more amusing than the other and therefore take less notice (or chuckle at it).
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Jun 8, 2011 10:09:09 GMT -5
I'm pretty certain he wouldn't be against abortion if he were the one that got pregnant.
|
|
|
Post by Iosa the Invincible on Jun 8, 2011 12:20:05 GMT -5
I'm pretty certain he wouldn't be against abortion if he were the one that got pregnant. Isn't their a quote someone said about if society evolved in a world where men could get pregnant, abortion would allowed and would never be an issue?
|
|