|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 9, 2011 14:08:35 GMT -5
He owns a computer store and dares to call himself a geek? PFFT!
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 9, 2011 18:53:30 GMT -5
I don't actually see how the privacy was infringed here! No name, no picture. Officially no trace back to the mother=no privacy breach! + 1
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 9, 2011 19:07:09 GMT -5
I don't actually see how the privacy was infringed here! No name, no picture. Officially no trace back to the mother=no privacy breach! + 1 - 1
|
|
|
Post by TWoozl on Jun 9, 2011 20:00:54 GMT -5
I don't actually see how the privacy was infringed here! No name, no picture. Officially no trace back to the mother=no privacy breach! + 1 -1. He slung a private issue up on a billboard for anyone to see, he continually references her, and she *was* actually named in surreptitious fashion. He continues to attack her in any way possible, and is at best, a waste of meat regardless of what the courts decide on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 9, 2011 20:04:41 GMT -5
Not to mention that it's a small town, so anyone that knows him knows her.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 9, 2011 20:09:48 GMT -5
-1. He slung a private issue up on a billboard for anyone to see, he continually references her, and she *was* actually named in surreptitious fashion. He continues to attack her in any way possible, and is at best, a waste of meat regardless of what the courts decide on the issue. Was her name on the billboard? Anywhere?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 9, 2011 20:11:27 GMT -5
-1. He slung a private issue up on a billboard for anyone to see, he continually references her, and she *was* actually named in surreptitious fashion. He continues to attack her in any way possible, and is at best, a waste of meat regardless of what the courts decide on the issue. Was her name on the billboard? Anywhere? N.A.N.I. It got taken down and replaced, but regardless, anyone who knows him in that small town knows her, and the smaller the town, the more likely it is that more people know him.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Jun 9, 2011 20:15:55 GMT -5
Even if her name was nowhere on that billboard, all anyone has to do is recognize HIM, and his photo IS on the billboard. You recognize this guy, you know who he dated, and now you know that the woman he dated has had an abortion.
It is an invasion of privacy.
|
|
|
Post by Radiation on Jun 9, 2011 20:25:33 GMT -5
This guy is a serious nutcase, look at his Twitter feed. Wow, a grade A asshole. This guy is not fit to be walking around in society, he should be locked up and then buttraped like Deliverance.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 9, 2011 20:26:40 GMT -5
Even if her name was nowhere on that billboard, all anyone has to do is recognize HIM, and his photo IS on the billboard. You recognize this guy, you know who he dated, and now you know that the woman he dated has had an abortion. It is an invasion of privacy. So... the contention here is that someone may not publicly comment on his or her private relationships in public, unless the other party agrees to the comment being made? Even if the other party is no where named? How many of us have complained about our former relationships (or been complained about) on this very forum without those (ex)partners consent?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 9, 2011 20:30:27 GMT -5
Not to mention that she was named, though rather subtly. N.A.N.I.
That's her name.
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Jun 9, 2011 20:31:51 GMT -5
[So... the contention here is that someone may not publicly comment on his or her private relationships in public, unless the other party agrees to the comment being made? Even if the other party is no where named? How many of us have complained about our former relationships (or been complained about) on this very forum without those (ex)partners consent? The big difference is that he did this in a small town and posted his picture. As others have said, if someone recognizes him, they will recognize his ex and know she had an abortion. This forum is on the Internet. If you saw any of us IRL, do you think you would recognize us? Without knowing who we really are, there is no way to connect our stories to the real people they involve.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 9, 2011 20:35:32 GMT -5
[So... the contention here is that someone may not publicly comment on his or her private relationships in public, unless the other party agrees to the comment being made? Even if the other party is no where named? How many of us have complained about our former relationships (or been complained about) on this very forum without those (ex)partners consent? The big difference is that he did this in a small town and posted his picture. As others have said, if someone recognizes him, they will recognize his ex and know she had an abortion. This forum is on the Internet. If you saw any of us IRL, do you think you would recognize us? Without knowing who we really are, there is no way to connect our stories to the real people they involve. So, again... are we contending that someone loses the right to discuss prior relationships if the person is recognisable? How large a community would you expect before people could do something like this?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 9, 2011 20:36:16 GMT -5
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying one has no right to disclose someone else's very personal private business--medical history, impotence, their proficiency or lack of in bed--to a massive audience, such as on a billboard. Not in a group of friends, but to a public audience. In this particular case it's also leaving the woman open to harrassment and potentially attack. Without publishing her name, I don't see it. Sorry. Tasteless? Unnecessary? Mean? Sure. All of that. But does he have a right to do it? I'd say yes he does. Freedom of speech, again. I don't see it as any different to any given colour-by-numbers angry woman comediene commenting on her boyfriend's lack of sexual prowess, for example.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 9, 2011 20:37:53 GMT -5
Not to mention that she was named, though rather subtly. N.A.N.I. That's her name. OK. Well thats not defensible at all.
|
|