Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard

[savalez]

Source: AP

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.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110606/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_billboard

---

The guy is using the U.S. Supreme Court decision from earlier this year concerning the Westboro Baptist Church to justify violating her right to privacy. If this stands we are all in trouble.

[slackmaster]

1. Marriage. What is it for?

[Taverner]

2. Loving v Virginia should be the core of this case

If otherwise, we are doomed

[savalez]

4. Why?

Wasn't that an interracial marriage issue?

[Taverner]

109. Yes but it's, at its core, a privacy issue

What you do, who you marry, etc is not for the state to decide

[Drale]

3. Sue his ass for libel, sue him for every single penny he has

plus a million more. Make sure he never has the money to do anything he wants ever again.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. The truth is the ultimate defense for such cases

But are there are claims it was a miscarriage

[snagglepuss]

6. If its true she can't sue for libel. I'm no lawyer but perhaps she can win a suit for

invasion of privacy.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Did he have a legal obligation to protect her privacy?

Not sure as a matter of law she would have a case in most US courts. However, he would be a spectacularly unsympathetic defendant in any venue.

[liberation]

15. Regardless of privacy. The libel case is quite clear.

If she sues, he will be taken to the cleaners.

[kelly1mm]

20. How is a libel case quite clear and that he will be taken to the cleaners? The

truth is an absolute defense to libel.

[Lars39]

32. He basically called her a murderer...abortion is a legal medical procedure.

[kelly1mm]

37. No, he did not call her a murderer. If he did, I would have agreed with

you. He said she "killed our child" according to the OP. Libel is very specific. 'Basically' does not cut it.

[liberation]

40. Well...

I wonder what murderers do, since obviously they do not kill people...

He did not use her name through, which I assume will be the next level concern maneuver...right?

[kelly1mm]

61. Murderers kill people without legal authority. That is the diference.nt

[liberation]

84. But the whole point of this billboard is this guy did not agree with the legality of the abortion

and thus indeed he was implying murder. Which is why, well... he posted that billboard to begin with.

Nice try at concern fishing BTW, are you working on the defense case out of curiosity? LOL.

[kelly1mm]

90. From the picture below it is clear that he opposes abortion being legal. Libel

cannot rest on implication. The exact words used (I assume with counsel by the anti abortion group on the ad) are carefully chosen not to get him or them into legal trouble.

As to working for the defense - not working for anyone but just pointing out certain legal realities.

If you or others don't care about that and would rather just post/read shit house lawyer pronouncements then be my guest.

[liberation]

127. "shit house lawyer" LOL, projection being what it is...

He accused his ex-gf of KILLIN someoneg (i.e. a false charge), that is a clear defamation of character, in this case a false charge MADE IN PUBLIC and IN WRITING, aka LIBEL.

And BTW, defamation of character rests on implication a big percentage of the time. I just find it amusing the approach you're taking, if you are a lawyer you must be a bad one.

[Hosnon]

146. It's not necessarily libel/slander to say a person killed someone.

As the other poster is pointing out, murder is a subset of killing (i.e., illegal killing). Legal killings occur all the time (e.g., by police officers, executioners, abortion doctors).

Now - I agree that there is some ambiguity regarding whether a fetus is a "person", but I don't think that is relevant. There is zero ambiguity regarding whether a fetus is a living thing, capable of being killed.

However, if she did not kill the fetus (whether a person or simply a collection of living cells) but had a miscarriage, she might have a case against him.

[Lars39]

46. I don't agree.

[kelly1mm]

62. That is nice, not relevant or enlightening, but nice. nt

[PassingFair]

135. Abortion is not murder, and an embryo is not a child.

Libel.

[Hosnon]

147. But if she did have an abortion,

something was killed. Cells are alive.

If libel/slander cases are not undeniably clear, the First Amendment usually bludgeons them.

[PassingFair]

149. Bullshit.

If I had a skin tag cut off, I wouldn't say I "killed the skin tag".

[Hosnon]

152. That's a good point. But the truth is an absolute defense. If I said you killed your skin

cells, I would be factually correct, and therefore immune from a libel/slander lawsuit.

[Jim Lane]

211. When I had chemotherapy, it killed the cancer cells in my body.

The statement that she decided to have the fetus killed is factually accurate (unless it was a miscarriage, as some have suggested).

The statement that this was an evil deed -- including an implication that it was morally on a par with murdering a human -- is an opinion.

A defamation action does not lie for a factual statement that is true or for the expression of an opinion.

It's likely, however, that she has a very good case for invasion of privacy (public disclosure of private facts). Indeed, I dimly recall that there's some authority that, to win on a claim that your privacy was invaded, you must show that the statement about you was true. Otherwise, it's not public disclosure of private facts.

[PassingFair]

213. When my friend had his kidney removed.

The doctor did NOT exclaim "We've killed his kidney!"

Because that would be SILLY, wouldn't it.

[Hosnon]

214. That's not the point.

The point is that your friend could not sue the doctors for libel/slander for exclaiming that he hired them to kill it.

Because he did.

[Jim Lane]

217. The kidney did die. The doctor didn't exclaim it because that wasn't the purpose.

My analogy is better because in chemotherapy, as in abortion, the purpose of the procedure is to kill living cells that are in the patient's body. It wouldn't have been at all silly for my oncologist to exclaim, "We've killed his tumor!"

I just Googled the phrase "kill cancer cells" and got more than five million hits, such as headlined "Scientists use salmonella bug to kill cancer cells." The point is that use of the word "kill" does not imply that the person doing the killing is the moral equivalent of a murderer.

If you Google "kill kidney" you get some hits for killing kidney stones. That's consistent with the distinction I suggested.

[kenichol]

220. Actually he said, "...she killed MY child..." nt

[liberation]

41. Because he defamed her character in written (i.e. printed) words in a public manner

you know, the actual definition of libel.

[askeptic]

53. The truth is not libelous

[liberation]

85. What "truth?"

Who did his ex-gf kill exactly?

[LisaL]

55. Just publishing negative information about someone is not

libelous. It has to be false info for it to be libelous.

[liberation]

86. Nope, it is a printed defamation of character. Look up the definition.

Cheers.

[LisaL]

113. Right after you do it.

[liberation]

128. So you're saying you do not know the definition of "defamation of character?"

So why are you voicing your opinion in a matter you don't understand?

[LisaL]

203. You are the one who seem to have no clue as to what

"defamation of character" is. Look it up.

[kelly1mm]

123. Simple yes or no question. Is the truth a defense to libel? nt

[liberation]

129. Oh, yes! I can play this game: Is this not a defamation of character in writing, also known as libel

Sup?

[kelly1mm]

151. I will answer your question once you answer mine. Is truth an absolute defense to libel? nt

[CreekDog]

140. i love all the folks here coming to do one thing: comment only to defend the guy

:eyes:

[The Doctor.]

177. No one is defending the asshole.

They are defending his right of expression.

Funny how some people can't get past their emotions and realize that.

[kelly1mm]

63. Did you read the absolute defences to libel when reading that definition?

If not, you should. By the way, why would having an abortion, a legal medical proceedure, defame her character?

[liberation]

87. Because he did not use the term "abortion" he accused her of killing someone.

That is a very big difference. Furthermore, it is not clear if there was an abortion or a miscarriage involved. Either matter is private, and specially in the case of an abortion the procedure involves the consent of the pregnant woman only. She has a right to privacy as well as to control her body. Deal with it.

I take some of you would be perfectly OK with random people publishing your medical procedures, under whatever spin they so chose, in big fuck all billboards for everyone to see then?

[kelly1mm]

92. Killing someone is not always illegal. Capital punishment, military

actions, self defence ect. are all justifiable legal means of killing someone. Abortion is also a legally justifiable means of killing (or ending the potential for - NOT trying to get into the abortion argument) the fetus (or child/potential child).

Being "OK" with something and saying something is legaly actionable are two very different things.

Personally, I think the guy is one of the biggest assholes I have ever heard of. Does not mean he owes her damages.

[liberation]

131. Technically an abortion is just the termination of a pregnancy

It is only a "killing" under a subjective definition of where human life begins. And regardless about whatever the ironically named "pro-lifers" say, personhood or citizenship does not begin at conception since that is still an on going legal debate. So technically an abortion, in the states where it is legal, is not a "legalized kill" as you're trying to spin.


BTW, you didn't need the whole disclaimer line at the end. The sophistry was already thick as it was.


Cheers.

[StopTheNeoCons]

50. Yes Yes Yes +1 million...nt

[LisaL]

54. If what he put on the billboard is not false info, then it's not libel.

[Kurska]

68. Unless she didn't have an abortion it isn't libel.

It is a harsh sentiment and probably the billboard will be taken down, but it isn't libel.

[rebecca_herman]

130. he's actually admitted he's not sure whether she had an abortion

He knows she was pregnant and then she was no longer pregnant and did not have a baby. However, she did not want to discuss with her ex boyfriend whether she had an abortion or a miscarriage. He assumes that since she did not want to discuss it (hmm, I wonder why she wouldn't want to discuss it with a guy like him!), she MUST have had an abortion!

he admits this on his fundraising site: http://www.wishuponahero.com/wishes/?id=938203

[snooper2]

142. Her name, picture or likeness isn't on the billboard...

on edit, I see now it is...but he's "trying" to have an excuse that it's for something else...

That changes things in my mind- Now he should be fucked

[Karenina]

7. And now anyone with a lick of sense

KNOWS exactly why she didn't want to be tethered to him FOR LIFE...

[valerief]

14. +1000

[cosmicone]

21. +2000

Her best strategy would be to have another billboard next to it saying, "would you have this asshole's baby?"

[surrealAmerican]

48. Yup.

... or perhaps it should show his picture and say, "This jerk got me pregnant, and ran off when I told him I didn't want to have a child with him."

[hamsterjill]

144. "Would you have this asshole's baby?"

Best ad for birth control that there could be!

[gkhouston]

148. Or perhaps just a statistic of how much domestic abuse begins

during pregnancy, including the phone number of a local hotline. :evilgrin:

[Kolesar]

27. Ha! ... eom

[fishwax]

45. indeed!

:thumbsup:

[Ilsa]

69. And that should be her billboard in response to his. nt

[alarimer]

138. I hope no one else will either.

If he used his own name, EVERYONE knows what an asshole he is. I hope he never gets another date every again.

[saras]

9. They really ARE subhuman monsters...

I hate to advocate crime, even by dumb animals, but this guy deserves to be eaten alive by buzzards.

[tinymontgomery]

10. Doesn't HIPPA

apply? I thought for medical issues it was illegal to put it out in public. Just guessing here.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. I *think* it applies to providers, not John Q Public

[tinymontgomery]

18. Yea, I don't know

but nobody should be allowed to scream to the world my med problems. Of course then we could get into the "I tell my friend a condition and then they tell so and so in passing" you get my point. Interesting issue. Any lawyers have an input?

[LisaL]

59. Your friend is not obligated to keep your medical issues

private. Only your medical provider is.

[tinymontgomery]

67. Okay

thanks for the update.

[Jim Lane]

212. Your friend is not obligated BY HIPPA to do so, but there's a more general right of privacy.

There's a good chance that she has a valid cause of action for invasion of privacy, a legal concept that long predates HIPPA.

[boppers]

75. HIPPA applies broadly, but not to everybody.

Providers, suppliers, health care plans, etc.

A quick chart:
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/index.html

[BadgerKid]

13. Does HIPPA apply to employer/provider only? n/t

[Skittles]

28. it's HIPAA

[LisaL]

58. HIPAA applies to medical providers.

Is he a medical provider? I don't think so.

[Lars39]

12. I would think defamation of character and slander would also apply.

He called her a murderer.

[liberation]

16. Indeed, the civil case is quite clear.

He'll could be paying "alimony" for the rest of his life ironically.

[madaboutharry]

17. This man is at the very least emotionally abusive.

His behavior speaks volumes about his relationships with people.

[Odin2005]

19. What an asshole!

[cali]

22. Put up a billboard saying he abused her. And yes, odds are that he did.

his posting this billboard is very abusive.

[cosmicone]

23. Instead of courts ...

she should have another billboard saying "would you have that insensitive asshole's baby?"

A lot cheaper than lawyers and courts.

[Judi Lynn]

24. Here's the photo: truly shabby and stupid.

Right to Life New Mexico backs away from anti-abortion billboard
By Matthew Reichbach | 05.17.11 | 11:37 am

Right to Life New Mexico is distancing itself from a controversial anti-abortion billboard that appeared in Alamogordo over the weekend. RTLNM is looking to have its name removed from the sign.

The billboard shows a man looking down at an outline of a baby and says, “This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!”

The billboard is the work of Alamogordo’s Greg A. Fultz, who is featured in the billboard:

http://newmexicoindependent.com.nyud.net:8090/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/1-580x315.jpg

Fultz told the Alamogordo Daily News that the billboard is “merely a statement about anti-abortion and pro-life.” He says RTLNM originally agreed to endorse the billboard and have the organization’s name featured on it.

More:
http://newmexicoindependent.com/70122/right-to-life-new-mexico-backs-away-from-anti-abortion-billboard

[RevStPatrick]

31. I don't see the invasion of her privacy...

...on the billboard.
He didn't mention her by name.
Doesn't mean he's not an asshole...

[Judi Lynn]

34. It doesn't seem worth pondering to you that anyone who knew her, even superficially,

and knew that she was dating him would also be informed that she had chosen that procedure? If she wanted everyone to know SHE would have taken out a billboard.

It's clearly not his business to try to mold how the entire world sees her because of his unpleasant relationship with her. That's desperately out of line, shows he was poorly raised. The world, after all, is NOT about him.

[gejohnston]

112. Actually, quite a few depending

which community. I am guessing Alamogordo since he did not put the sign in Cloudcroft or Tulirosa. La Luz, maybe. Even though Alamogordo was the big city to me (going from Wyoming, to boot camp, to Holloman) it is kind of a medium town. If she is stationed at Holloman or White Sands Missle Range, her whole world knows. Bases are like small towns, especially air force bases.

[trud]

39. very weird looking individual. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

47. He's a real winner. Hard to believe she went anywhere with him in the first place. n/t

[ChrisBorg]

66. Wouldn't he have to identify the woman for slander or libel?

He was not married to her, so there is no legal paper trail. I don't see where there was much of a chance that drivers could connect her to the billboard unless they knew him. Anyone who knew him probably already heard him shoot his mouth off.

[rebecca_herman]

71. hmmm

according to the comments on that article the "n.a.n.i." identifies the woman's name. Also that she has a restraining order against him. If that's correct - wow, I hope she wins a lawsuit.

[Lucky Luciano]

103. One ugly dude! Wow! nt

[plumbob]

125. I also encourage anyone to stop doing business with the greedy assholes

who own the billboard!

Money from a deranged asshole is no excuse for participating in this violation of decency.

I'm of an age, that I can remember that if she had brothers, he'd be badly bruised. Sometimes the old ways are not particularly progressive, but not all bad, either.

I also need to find out where he works, so that I can encourage his employer to fire him. Evil people are not entitled to jobs.

[shanti]

25. ooh, the douche has a facebook account!

bet it doesn't stay up too long....

[Kolesar]

30. http://www.facebook.com/gfultz

http://www.facebook.com/gfultz

Owner/Lead Geek at GEFNET Computer/Internet Sales & ServiceStudied at New Mexico State University
Lives in Alamogordo, New Mexico From Virden, Illinois
Employers

GEFNET Computer/Internet Sales & Service
Owner/Lead Geek · Feb 1998 to present · Alamogordo, New Mexico
Home Based Business related to computer and internet services. Check out the Facebook page for GEFNET just search for GEFNET.com in the search bar.

New Mexico State University with Will Bartlett and Connie Breding
Scene Shop Technician · Aug 2009 to Apr 2011 · Alamogordo, New Mexico
I am the Scene Shop Technician for the Rohovec Fine Arts Center (theatre) @ NMSU-A. I build the sets for plays that are performed there. I also help in designing the lights and sounds for the play. You can also find me in the sound booth during the plays working on either the light or sound board for the play. this is a work-study position for the time being but i can see turning it into more then just a work-study position in the future i really enjoy what i do there.

WalmartMay 2008 to Jan 2009

Secure Detective and Security Agency
Apr 2004 to Dec 2007 · Terre Haute, Indiana
Security Guard

New Mexico State University
High School
Virden High School
Class of 1995

[jmowreader]

79. The facebook page is kinda strange...

On the "People Who Inspire Greg" page is Anton LaVey.

His favorite books are the "Dummies" series and the Satanic Bible.

His business is building computers in his (or his mom's?) basement.

He studied at, but apparently did not graduate from, New Mexico State University.

[Kolesar]

26. The media company should not have allowed him to rent that billboard

The company is probably run by RW creeps.

[liberation]

42. Well, technically it should be up to the courts to decide what is or isn't libel

I do not believe in censorship of any kind.

That being said, I think the ex-girlfriend has a clear libel case and I do hope she takes him to the cleaners.

[kelly1mm]

70. Could you expand on why you think she has a clear libel case? Truth

is an absolute defense to libel.

[liberation]

88. You keep repeating that argument, copy and paste ad infinitum a point makes not.

As I said earlier: printed defamation of character aka. LIBEL.

You seem way too vested in this case, which is fascinating.

[kelly1mm]

96. and you keep failing to recognise that truth is an absolute defense to libel. nt

[rebecca_herman]

101. he admits he doesn't even know if she had an abortion

http://www.wishuponahero.com/wishes/?id=938203 he is asking for donations for legal fees. He says he does not know for certain that she had an abortion, but assumes she did because she refused to talk to him about the reason she was no longer pregnant.

[kelly1mm]

120. The OP link says "her friends" say it was a miscarage. His attorney

says that is not the case. If she had a miscarage then he may have some legal problems. If she had an abortion, not so muchH

Your new link with new information (not in the OP) changes things. He will have to subpeona her medical records to prove his abosolute defense.

[liberation]

132. If he has to subpoena her medical records, then he could be in even worse shape

Since she did not disclose any info to him, that means that if he was "saying the truth" then he did in fact violate her privacy since the only way he could know that info is if he accessed her health records. And if he is wrong then he is liable for libel. Or he could be in fact guilty of both, since he accused her of killing his supposed daughter (a person who never existed).

[CreekDog]

141. the thing that troubles you the most about this story is that she might sue the guy

it just makes us all wonder, is that really all you have to say about this?

[The Doctor.]

166. How very strange.

Why some people assign emotions and motives that simply don't exists to people's posts is always fascinating to me.

Why did you invent the notion that the poster is 'troubled' at all? Seriously... how dare they, umm... state facts.

:eyes:

[CreekDog]

169. they posted again and again on the same issue

it's not credible to think they don't care about that issue in some way.

[The Doctor.]

171. No, it's actually fantastic to assume, as you have, that the poster cares at all.

Otherwise there would be some distinctive phrase you could point to to support your belief.

[CreekDog]

185. You found the male who did this a sympathetic character --that's that

you posted numerous times about it and apparently, seeing the twitter feed has enabled you to determine the billboard guy is scum (which nearly everyone else could see yesterday).

and now you're upset that i'm judging you by your posts yesterday.

too bad.

you want to say it, then prepare to own it until you take it back.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4874988&mesg_id=4875141

[The Doctor.]

188. Absolute bullshit.

Just because you and a handful of others cannot make distinctions, and choose to assign motive and emotions that are not there, does not make me 'sympathetic' toward him in any way.

That link only shows speculation that he appeared to want a child, that he appeared to have means to pay support if necessary, that men who don't want children are the ones who tend not to pay, and since (because you obviously couldn't put it together yourself) she apparently didn't want a child, then perhaps she would not want to pay support.

That's speculation and analysis. There isn't a single ounce of sympathy in there at all no matter how much you'd like to believe it.

Go have your witch hunt somewhere else.

[CreekDog]

189. Then what was it you were not ready to believe about the man who did this?

?

[The Doctor.]

195. Huh? Where do you get this stuff?

Can you please tell me where you got the notion that I wasn't 'ready to believe' anything in particular about this guy?

I'd really like a quote here, because I never said anything of the sort.

[leftynyc]

139. He didn't name her

I don't know why you're so insistant it's a slam dunk case when it clearly is not.

[tammywammy]

183. He did name her. His "organization" NANI - her name is Nani. n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

184. That's a very common asshole pattern.

Saying things in a roundabout way to try to deny it if called out. You see it all the time. Case in point: the stupid troll called 'The Doctor.' (with a period) that you see in this very thread. Fucker. He isn't fooling anybody.

[gejohnston]

111. More likely, business before ideology

and he was a paying customer. About $600 pissed away on a sign on White Sands Blvd, or most of a my month's pay when I was stationed at nearby Holloman. I can think of better ways he could have spent it. On the bright side, every woman in Otero County knows what a jerk he is.

[southernyankeebelle]

29. Wow this guy seems very controlling. Good for her because its her body. For me

I don't believe in abortion but it's not our place to judge others. The day you can tell a man that he can't have anymore babies out of wedlock or they will need to be snipped then maybe I say follow through.

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. We had a name for guys who acted like this in college

No Ass Larry.

[MrScorpio]

35. The way this fucker is acting, she did the right thing

I can't imagine having to deal with this asshole for a lifetime because there's a chid between them.

For whatever reasons, I'm sure that the ex-GF is feeling that dodged a bullet.

[The Doctor.]

49. Or maybe he's just very upset.

How would she have had to 'deal with him for a lifetime'?

Obviously, terminating a pregnancy is the woman's decision. No man should treat a woman like an incubator for his own kids, but that doesn't mean he's not allowed to be upset... it would have been his child.

Obviously he should be with someone who wants children.

She should certainly be with someone else... or no one... just not him.

[musette_sf]

56. Correction: He should be with someone

who wants HIS children.

Men choosing the mother of their children without the consent of the female are called RAPISTS.

[The Doctor.]

57. On the first point, I agree. On the second, I didn't realize he had raped her.

I must have missed that in the article. Could you please excerpt that for me.

I'll wait a few minutes. No prob.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gejohnston]

114. Not what she said

She simply clarified someone who wants children with him. It is not accusing him of any such thing.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[musette_sf]

154. thank you

[The Doctor.]

158. Yes, it is.

Then why would she even bring up rape here?

If he raped her, then sure, he's a scumbag. What we have here are a handful of people that want to believe that all men are inherently evil.

Please do explain why she mentioned rape in regard to this story?

[petronius]

167. It was explained to you last night. More than once, as I recall

:shrug:

[The Doctor.]

174. And not very well.

Suddenly, reaching for an argument, the poster brings up rape.

Why?

To conflate what this guy did and rape. That's why. The insinuation that he 'raped' her in any way was so over the top as to be hysterical.

"Men choosing the mother of their children without the consent of the female are called RAPISTS."

This was plainly a very strong suggestion that conception was, in some way, not mutual. If he raped her, he should be charged, tried, and jailed. Otherwise, she chose to have sex and risk pregnancy with and by him. At no point in time after that did he have a 'choice'.

So I'm just curious how this man is a rapist?

If she's not calling him one, then why make a statement that is otherwise entirely irrelevant?

Now you all can go on and tell me I 'don't understand', but this is pretty clear and no one has given an adequate explanation.

[petronius]

179. He's not a rapist, as far as we know. And you're the only one who thinks anyone

thinks anything remotely like that. Your interpretation of Musette's post is incorrect - that was clearly explained to you last night, and if you hadn't gone and spewed a bunch of insults the sub-thread would probably still be there for you to review...

[The Doctor.]

190. Then do explain why she even mentioned it.

If the explanation is so simple, then please re-create it. I just love how people use that trick; "It was there, but because it's gone I was right!"

As for the sub-threads, it takes two to tango. I do not appreciate people insinuating things about me, and I respond accordingly.

No one explained anything last night. Her intention to conflate the issue with rape is bold, blatant, and out of bounds of any rational explanation to the contrary.

Please do try though.

[petronius]

194. Who insinuated anything about you, and what was it?

[The Doctor.]

196. It was something to the effect of me 'hating women', and it was more than insinuated.

There were some other insults, I don't recall by who, and I really don't care.

But, I'm the bad guy here as you've long since decided without the benefit of reason. So hate-away.

[petronius]

199. You have a vivid imagination. The only people in that sub-thread were you, me, and

some perfectly level-headed person whose name escapes me (Rebecca something?). The only thing you were accused of (by insinuation) was a poor ability to interpret written English, but you've provided ample reason for that conclusion.

So again, why do you feel that Musette's comment, or anything after it, was an attack on you?

[The Doctor.]

200. I hate to break this to you, but that subthread wasn't the only exchange I've had

and you few are not the only ones I had exchanges with either.

I'm sure in your imagination, a subthread was deleted because only I was out of line. Right? You're going to believe what you want to, there's nothing I can do about what is gone. In that exchange, I believe I pointed out that the 'written English' still did not contain a reasonable explanation for the 'rapist' comment.

I'm also noticing, with some small amusement, that you don't seem to have the ability to post that explanation yourself.

Any time would be fine.

[petronius]

202. Again, why do you feel that you are a victim or a target here? Why are you so

defensive about this story?

(As for Musette's comment - I know what she meant and so do you, whether you'll admit to it or no, and so does everyone else who has read it by now.)

[The Doctor.]

204. Wow.

Why are you so deliberately uncomprehending and simultaneously deluded?

1) Where have I been 'defensive about this story'?

I haven't, it's in your head.

2) Maybe I feel like a target because of, well, all the people targeting me.

Seriously, I make one comment about the guy's motives and I'm surrounded by harpies screaming that I've somehow 'defended his behavior'. I'm just amazed at the hysteria

3) You claim we all 'get it', yet still cannot manage to explain how.


Her comment was intended to insinuate that this guy is no better than a rapist. Period. That's exactly what she meant, and when I called her on it everyone flew into hysterics. That's people's real problem with me; I call out the bullshit.

Like I have several times.

If you can't produce an explanation, we're done here.

[petronius]

206. "No better than a rapist" =/= 'a rapist'

You realize you've just walked back everything you argued in this sub-thread, right? :shrug:

And if you don't want to explain why you take this so personally, and why you feel like you're a victim, that's your prerogative. Just know that the image you apparently have of yourself here and the one you're projecting are not the same.

As for me, my only purposes were to clarify your false analysis of Musette's comment, and to get an explanation of your odd tree-saw comment (not necessarily in that order of importance). Both of those purposes are now met...

[The Doctor.]

207. Wow.

Nice to see you pat yourself on the back for a job not done.

It's kind of like the way that Global Warming deniers say 'It's not us!'. Then, when you ask them to give you another explanation they twist away into the wind.

She compared the man to a rapist. I'm amazed at how deliberately you choose not to see that, even in the face of your total inability to offer some other explanation.

Y'all are a fascinating subject, but you've pretty much proven you have nothing but desire upon which to base your belief.

You want to believe I'm somehow wrong without reason, facts, or an explanation. There's nothing I can do to get through that.

Go live in your fantasy world. I'd hate you to have to actually deal with reality.

[The Doctor.]

198. Oh, and I'm still waiting for that explanation that was apparently perfect and rational

before it became deleted... because it was just too darn rational and that is somehow against DU rules.

I'm sure you remember it. Please, if you could refresh my memory I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks!

:hi:

[Scout]

215. i don't think THAT was the post that got the subthread deleted LOL n/t

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hosnon]

218. We need a new internet "law" similar to Godwin's Law.

"As an online discussion about an alleged libeler/slanderer grows longer, the probability of someone committing libel or slander against said alleged libeler/slanderer approaches 1 (100%)."

I don't think you are being literal though.

[Alcibiades]

94. When you have a child with someone

you have to manage custody, visitation and child support issues if you're not together. I'm glad you're not unlucky enough to know about this, but it can be quite acrimonious. If just one of the parents is bitter about the breakup, for example, then they can and do drag on the drama for years. Not to mention, of course, the likely issues with child support she'd face with a sometime Wal-Mart employee who has moved on to a "home-based business."

The only thing we really know is that he got this billboard, presumably paid for by the right to lifers. This is a shitty way for him to treat someone he supposedly wanted to raise a child with.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[plumbob]

126. He needs to be prevented from reproducing - don't need these genes.

At all.

[MellowDem]

36. Definitely a dick move...

not sure it's illegal though. Her name wasn't used in the billboard. Not so sure about harassment either. Surprised she isn't bringing up other charges, especially based on the word "kill".

Really, the dude has probably done more damage to his own reputation and privacy than anything else.

If this stands, I don't think we are all in trouble.

[savalez]

64. I guess the question is

can you put a picture of yourself in an advertisement stating that your "so-and-so" is a murderer just as long as you don't name them? An ex-wife, ex-husband, or perhaps even a boss can easily be identified by those who know you. I suppose those who don't know you wouldn't care unless the allegation is so egregious that they are compelled to find out. Interesting.

[MellowDem]

72. I think the word "kill" is the key...

I mean, this guy could have told everyone he knew and she knew about the abortion (if it actually was an abortion) anyways. He didn't specifically call her a murderer, and under the law, if it was an abortion, she is not. Whether a person thinks abortion is "killing" and a fetus is a human being for all intents and purposes, I think that is just a matter of opinion more than anything else, and not really something that can be said as "true" or "false".

If she didn't have an abortion, then she's got a much better case, but the fact that she didn't bring up libel charges makes me think she doesn't have that to support her.

I'm sure a sympathetic court could find something though. How it will go on appeal, if it gets to that point, would be interesting.

[MadMaddie]

38. This is why contraception exists

this guy is a bully. I hope she takes him to court.

[Cherchez la Femme]

43. Maybe he should have married her & not made a bastard

Or married before he procreated at all.

Just sayin'...

[shanti]

107. or wrapped it up beforehand

:eyes: just saying.

[Cherchez la Femme]

219. true too

[jmowreader]

44. I would imagine...

that buying a billboard with his picture on it and the caption, "Women Of New Mexico: Do Not Date This Man!" would work. "Greg Fultz Has No Penis" is probably actionable libel since he has a penis--one he doesn't know how to put a rubber on, but a penis nonetheless.

And I cannot imagine trying to get child support out of that person.

[demgrrrll]

51. I love that nt

[The Doctor.]

60. I like it too. Free speech is free speech, right?

Also, it's the men who don't want children that don't pay support.

This was apparently a man who certainly wanted a child. He could also apparently afford a billboard.

Perhaps the real problem he would have had was getting child support from the mother?

[iemitsu]

89. his actions don't necessarily mean he wanted children.

he could just want to berate and embarrass his ex-girlfriend.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iemitsu]

102. i am a male and certainly don't believe they are all assholes.

but i do believe that a man who would advertize such a personal experience publicly (and point an accusing finger at his ex as if she had denied him his due) is probably one.
i could be wrong.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iemitsu]

108. clearly i don't know the true motivation of the sign poster.

but the sign looks more like anger than grief to me.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Doctor.]

161. We simply don't know.

Not from the sign.

From finding out about this guy's character, it makes more sense to draw that conclusion.

[iemitsu]

210. his paying for and posting the sign reveals much

about his character. this sign was posted for the two month "anniversary" of an un-born child. one must assume many months passed between the alleged "killing" of the potential child and the purchase of the billboard space.
mr fultz may have been grieving but he was also harassing his ex-girlfriend. he paid for the sign because a restraining order kept him from harassing her more directly.

[CreekDog]

145. I have to judge your story by the way you defend the guy in this story's actions

that you seem to see so much in common with him and justify what he did is making me doubt the version of the story you posted, or that you were the good guy in the situation you were in.

[The Doctor.]

157. I do not 'defend' anyone.

What I object to is how many automatically believe, without knowing the particular set of circumstances, that this was done strictly out of spite.

While I agree that is a likely conclusion, most are arriving at it due to a natural hatred of men.

[The Doctor.]

160. This maybe true.

If it is, I find it disgusting. Personally, I'd beat him to within an inch of his life because of how such actions propagate the general hatred of men I see so often in society.

I would not be so sensitive if I were not the undeserving victim of that hatred.

My kids wound up in a trailer park with their coke-addict mother, not because I had ever done anything wrong, but because so many other men have. Because of assholes like this guy (as has become more evident), good men get screwed along with their kids.

Unfortunately, every single time a man does anything where there is any doubt of motive, the knee-jerkers jump up and condemn it not because they know the whole story, but because it's a man.

[Scout]

164. oh, poor innocent victim....

"My kids wound up in a trailer park with their coke-addict mother, not because I had ever done anything wrong, but because so many other men have."

did you seek custody in court? did you prove to the judge that their mother is a coke-addict? and what the fuck is wrong with living in a trailer park? poor baby, all that hatred of men, directed undeservedly at you.

[The Doctor.]

168. Wow. I'm going to do something for you that you seem incapable of;

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

You obviously are entirely unaware of how badly the court system tends to treat men. I'm quite certain you'd fail the hypocrisy test if I were a woman who said almost exactly the same thing;

"My kids wound up in a trailer park with their coke-addict father."

You'd be gushing with sympathy for me. Don't pretend otherwise, it would insult both of us.

As for the circumstances;

1) Yes, I told my lawyer, the law guardian, and even the judge that she had a drug habit.

They ignored it.

2) I never said there was anything 'wrong' with living in a trailer park. I've lived in one too. The point is that they could be living in their original home in their own rooms rather than having to share one.

You appear to be unaware because in many cases, such an outcome as mine is avoided... when the one with the drug habit is male. The victimhood status of women is enshrined in the system. Men are almost universally seen as 'bad' while women are almost universally treated as victims.

My ex used our children as leverage against me, blocked my access to them for weeks because I asked her to drive the 60 mile round trip once, sicced her boyfriend on me in front of the children, lied to the court, committed perjury, and a handful of other nasty, unreasonable, and unfounded things.

When I sought relief from her treatment, with nothing in front of the female judge but my complaint that I swore to and was willing to defend and/or prove, the Judge SCOLDED ME for wanting a fair driving arrangement, set access, and a neutral location away from the BF.

This is certainly hard for you to believe, because you are entirely unaware of how badly men are treated in the system. Without hundreds of thousands of dollars and a team of lawyers, most men are treated like garbage regardless of the individual circumstances.

I know that a great part of this is due to the many, many asshole men that don't give a damn about their kids. Unfortunately, because those men rarely pay anything, the system is far too willing to brutalize good fathers just for being men. This is why I've said many, many times that few things make me as enraged as deadbeat assholes whose actions indirectly put my kids where they are, with a child for a mother, and an asshole BF she tells them to call 'Papa'.

So please understand; I'm am very sensitive to people's knee-jerk misandry when there may be some doubt. I make no apologies for being so sensitive. I'm a hell of a dad, and my kids and I have been screwed out of so much because of that exact man-hating reflex.

[petronius]

118. Your first caption is a good one, but I'm pretty sure he's already sent that message more

effectively than any additional billboard could accomplish...

[sendero]

52. Perhaps..

... she did not believe the man involved would be there to care for the child. I know plenty of losers that can't figure out why their "girlfriends" are not interested in raising kids with them.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[glinda]

65. Harassment and violation of one's privacy is not free speech.

[The Doctor.]

73. I have an interesting question...

My 'Lying sack of Ex' abandoned her marriage for no more noble a reason than a guy she met at a strip-club offered her a life without responsibility or introspection. Seeing how she would never have to actually regard her behavior with him (at least as far as she could imagine), while I, otoh, took exception to the children going through her purse which often had cocaine in it, it was obvious to her which was the 'path of least resistance'.

So she left, I had no idea why at the time. Don't scoff oh pernicious ones... she had me fooled. I didn't find out about her son-of-a-multi-millionaire boyfriend until a month after she left.

Had I known, I never would have let her take our children. Even working 12 hour days, I would have happily engaged all my modest resources to keep them at home. Out of one side of her face she had me convinced it was 'temporary', the other side looked towards living on a half-million dollar piece of property (which is nice for Corfu, NY) and starting a 'new' family with an arrogant teenager who was 20 years her senior.

He too, what being the son of a local industrialist and congressional candidate, has a reputation for the 'nose candy'. (They met at a strip-club fercryinoutloud)

It doesn't matter that she and the kids live in a trailer park now (plenty of decent people live there). She has the children in tow while she quests desperately for the 'Happily Ever After' this disgusting asshole (to whom I owe my freedom from such a duplicitous creature, but also the departure of my dearly beloved children) originally offered her.

I know that a good portion, if not all, of the money I pay her goes straight the fuck up her nose rather than to the children.

I know that hair testing will prove one of two things;

1) She uses copious amounts of cocaine.
2) She used expensive detoxification remedies to avoid testing positive for copious amounts of cocaine.

So... Here's my question;

If I leased a billboard stating that she (name and all) is a coke-head, and I worry (as I do, even here and now) about the safety of the children, then please tell me, all or any of you who have such a clue;

Would that be wrong?

I want to say something about my ex. It is something she did that I don't like. The justification is different, but the point is the same; I and my children are wronged... Am I not allowed to speak of it?

[Meldread]

74. He's going to win every case filed against him.

First, the Bill Board doesn't even mention the woman by name. There is no connection to her what-so-ever, and the only people who'd even make the connection are people who knew they dated. Even then, there is plausible deniability on the woman's part. He could be talking about a former girlfriend, wife, or simply lying.

Second, this is a clear cut case of free speech. The ad (and that's what it is) was sponsored by an anti-choice group. It is virtually entirely political in nature.

Is the guy an asshole? Probably. But that is irrelevant when it comes to cases such as this. She may very well feel defamed and targeted, but there is absolutely no evidence in her favor that I can see.

[rebecca_herman]

80. allegedly it does name her

It says at the bottom "for N.a.n.i". Several people who lived in the area and commented on articles are saying that the woman is named Nani.

[Lars39]

82. The town only has about 30,000 people.

Her identity would spread like wildfire in a place that size.

[Meldread]

97. Here is the Billboard:

It was linked up thread, here it is again:

http://newmexicoindependent.com.nyud.net:8090/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/1-580x315.jpg

While I have no idea what GEFNET stands for, RLNM stands for Right to Life New Mexico - a legitimate anti-choice political organization.

I'd certainly agree with you that the "National Association of Needed Information" (NANI) is highly dubious, but the very fact that the guy (who doesn't look too bright) didn't say: "This would have been a picture of my 2-month old baby if Nani had not decided to kill our child!" -- That says to me that he probably had legal advice, likely from the anti-choice groups he no doubt contacted first (which is how it got endorsed, and I'm assuming GEFNET is also an anti-choice group).

In the end, because of this, I think the billboard falls very clearly under political speech. I don't doubt the guys intention was to say "Fuck You" to his ex-girlfriend. He wouldn't have appeared in the billboard otherwise.

However, at the same time imagine that it was someone from our side. We use a picture of a young girl, showing her as roughly 23 years of age. The back story behind the photo is that she was raped at the age of 16, and due to her mother's strong anti-choice religious beliefs, she refused to consent to her daughter having an abortion. The laws of the state required parental consent. As a result, the young girl was forced to carry the child to term and give birth. Her mother is currently raising the child. The message on the bill board wouldn't name her mother directly, but would be a swipe against those who oppose abortion and basically imply that any who are anti-choice also are pro-rape and anti-woman.

The billboard is sponsored and paid for by two pro-choice groups. Now the question: Should the mother get a chance to sue her daughter for liable or defamation (as suggested up thread)? The mothers argument would be very similar to the womans here in question, the law was on her side - she was fully within her right to refuse consent due to her religious beliefs. She makes clear that she does not support nor condone her daughters rape, and states that her daughter's hostility (and billboard) are causing emotional harm to the child who is completely innocent in all these matters.

This is the problem with free speech, and in particular political free speech: it cuts both ways. If we deny it to our opposition it can also be denied to us. Yes, it's appropriate to be outraged by things that we're opposed to, but it's another thing entirely to desire legal and governmental intervention to punish those we're opposed to - because, in the end, anything used against the other side can also be used against us.

So, if we imagine this woman taking her case all the way to the Supreme Court and winning it would be the very definition of a Pyrrhic Victory for the pro-choice movement, as the very same ruling that they'd win would in turn be used against us in the future.

[Cerridwen]

100. Nani is the girlfriend's name.

See downthread for a link to a very enlightening and disgusting twitter feed.

"What do you do when you see your girfriend running around the front yard bleeding?"

"Stay calm and reload"

[gejohnston]

115. If that is his idea of humour

Kicking his happy ass to the curb now before they got too serious was very smart. If I were her dad and I did not teach her how to shoot when she was a kid, I would be teaching her now.

[Cerridwen]

116. In another thread, I noted that she should get a protective order and

a gun. I imagine it won't go over well with some here.

Just because you spelled humor with a 'u' I'll take a moment to say that a 'protective order' is a legal doc here in the US that, in theory, means the person has to stay away from the one with the protective order.

I didn't click your profile and I don't mean to presume you don't know "our" laws here; it's just, the spelling can mean you're from another country and you may call "your" legal documents something else.

If I'm wrong, let me pre-emtively apologize.

[gejohnston]

182. No problem. I am American who

grew up in Wyoming (where boys and girls learning how to shoot is a wholesome thing, and nutty misogynists tend to ummmmmmmm let's just say they don't get elected) I worked with Brits and Canadians enough to start varying my spelling.

[liberation]

134. He names her in the billboard (nani) and she already had a previous restraining order against him

She actually may have a very good case:

Defamation of character in writing, possible intrusion of privacy, and attempt at intimidation while a restraining order is in effect.

Whether she choses to press charges or not, that is another matter. Given the guy seems to be making not-so veiled death threats against her in his twiter feed, she probably does not want to push this supine asshole to the logical end of his wits. And I can't say I blame her given that a civil case may just provide that.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

143. Comments from a law prof over coffee this AM

"He would most likely win as a matter of law, if not in trial court, then on appeal, especially given recent decisions bu SCOTUS. However, if it ever gets in front of a jury, he will lose at level rarely seen."

The real question is if this is going to be litigated...

[BlueIris]

77. Anyone who would make a 'billboard' like that is a piece of shit. nt

[The Doctor.]

78. Why?

Not that I disagree, I just want to see your reasoning.

[CreekDog]

153. convinced now?

Greg Fultz
@prdpgn Greg Fultz
What do you tell a woman with 2 black eyes? Nothing. She's already been told twice.

:eyes:

[The Doctor.]

156. Right, he's a piece of shit. That much is clear. I still disagree with the above statement.

Without knowing every conceivable set of circumstances, one cannot make such a statement.

[LanternWaste]

159. What valid, plausible scenarios would validate his actions as moral?

"Without knowing every conceivable set of circumstances, one cannot make such a statement..."

What valid, plausible scenarios would validate his actions as moral?

[The Doctor.]

162. There are any number of reasons.

Suppose she lost the baby because she was an addict?

What would everyone here be saying then?


Be honest; people would say, "Oh how tragic! The man is in grief and is trying to raise awareness!"

There might even be a punitive element if he put her name up there, but doing so would make it harder for her to stay in the habit and perhaps motivate her to seek help.

That would be a highly moral position. Not one I would necessarily agree with, as there is a chance of other types of fallout, but he would have moral grounds nonetheless.

[Scout]

165. really, really stretching it here LOL

there is NOTHING moral about his actions. spin as hard as you want, use all the conjecture and what ifs that you want...

[The Doctor.]

170. Hey, you asked. And it's hardly a stretch.

Meanwhile, the only judgment you are making about the 'morality' of this is based on the man's motives, not his actions.

If he wanted the child, and she didn't, it's her choice. But saying that the man has no right to air his grievance based on your assumptions is ludicrous. Add to that the fact that you have to convince yourself of the delusion that I care at all about whether this guy was acting 'morally' or not.

I don't have to spin a damn thing. All I have to do is ask you a question;

- Does someone who feels they have been wronged have the right to publicly air their grievance or not?

You want to claim that this is 'immoral'. I can agree with that despite the fact that I give very little credence to 'morality' at all. But the answer here is simple; either 'yes they do', or 'no they do not'.

I just like to cut clean through the BS, that's all.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

173. ''That would be a highly moral position.''

Wow. Just wow.

"Not one I would necessarily agree with" <-- :rofl:

[The Doctor.]

175. I'm not a fan of 'morality'.

Could you perhaps explain your hysterics?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

178. What you call ''hysterics'' is the natural reaction to seeing someone try to defend the indefensible

while simultaneously trying to deny that he is performing such defense.

It is highly amusing.

[The Doctor.]

186. Just what is it that you think I'm defending?

I understand that it can sometimes be hard work to make distinctions, I also suppose it's possible I haven't been perfectly clear, but you seem possessed of a notion that is entirely wrong.

So please, so that I can clear the fog in your head; just what do you think I'm defending?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

187. It is painfully obvious and therefore in no need to be pointed out.

You see, I'm not trying to convince YOU of anything. This exchange is for the benefit of onlookers who may mistakenly think you have a point.

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Doctor.]

205. Yes, of course, it's so immensely obvious that you can't point to any of the blatant obviousness

Yep, stands out like a sore thumb that you can't see, touch, or point to.

:sarcasm:

Look, I know that witch-hunters and rage-junkies around here love to leap at shadows and creations in their own minds. You're obviously no exception. I've had plenty of experience with people, who love to level accusations, make insinuations, and then when called on it, instead of making a concrete argument or providing evidence, links, excerpts, or anything, they just do exactly the same thing everytime;

"I don't have to prove anything... it's just 'obvious'."




I've been called a 'homophobe' by people who could not find one single instance, anywhere, of anything even hinting at the notion that I could ever be homophobic.

The same with 'sexist', 'racist', etc.

The formula is exactly the same every single time; I go into an emotional thread where I see people spouting off furiously and I post something rational;

"Or maybe he's just very upset."

How dare I, while not knowing the full circumstances, suggest the possibility that he acted out of genuine emotional trauma? I know... now that I have listed a possible motive for him, suddenly it's the same as saying "He was RIGHT to do what he did!" as far as all the emotion-hyped ragers can tell.

Of course, I did absolutely no such thing.

I have found, in virtually every case, that people in rage-threads are unable to make distinctions, and very willing to attack what they perceive to be support of the object of their anger.

Another perfect example; Someone pointed out, factually, that libel suits fail against truthful accounts. That person too was attacked as being 'sympathetic'.

All you'll really have is; "Everyone can see it!" without a single damn thing to point to.


Behavior really does fascinate me.

[LanternWaste]

191. I'm afraid I do not see how your circumstances justify his actions.

I'm afraid I still do not see how your circumstances justify and moralize his actions. :shrug:

[The Doctor.]

193. Where did I ever say his actions were justified?

I didn't, nor have I attempted to justify them. Nor am I interested in talking about anyone's version of 'morality' as it is an entirely subjective and ridiculous measure of 'rightness'. I gave an example of where someone else might be 'morally justified' because I was asked, not because I believe in 'moral justification'.

Unfortunately, the enraged mind cannot make distinctions that would enable someone to see that.

You, apparently, are no exception.

I asked a simple question to cut through the bullshit, yet it's been avoided like slugs avoid salt.

"If someone feels wronged, do they have the right to air their grievances in public?"

It's a very simple question, and the only point I've really cared to make here.


I know... in your outrage you think that just because I think he has the right to do something like this must mean I agree with it.

Right? I understand how we like to keep it simple when we're mad.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

172. "Not that I disagree"

No, wait, let me guess. "I am a lifelong pro-choicer but..."

[The Doctor.]

197. So, I agree with the guy and I ask what his reasoning is.

And somehow that, in your muddy noggin, translates to "Leave poor scumbag alone!"

Why should I ever take you seriously?

[Starry Messenger]

91. **FULTZ Posting Domestic Abuse "Jokes" on Twitter**

Greg Fultz
@prdpgn Greg Fultz
What do you tell a woman with 2 black eyes? Nothing. She's already been told twice.


Asshole.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

209. I hope the far right latches on to this guy

http://s1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd516/whtrbt2011/?albumview=slideshow

He is disturbing.

[tammywammy]

93. Holy crap, check out his twitter!

http://s1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd516/whtrbt2011/?albumview=slideshow

That is one disturbing individual. BTW, the NANI on the billboard is the poor girl's name. What an asshole.

[Supply Side Jesus]

104. ya, this dude needs some help

who broadcasts their pain in such a manner?

[liberation]

133. Astounding, the guy is literally making death threads against his ex-gf

and yet he harps about the sanctity of life. These "pro-lifers" are a study in contraction.

Even more amusing are the people defending this guy in this thread. DU is really going on weird directions with the whole "big tent" approach.

[KamaAina]

176. Freudian Post O' The Month!

These "pro-lifers" are a study in contraction.

It's "contradiction". But "Life begins at conception and ends at contraction" works micely!

[GETPLANING]

98. That was cruel

I'm not sure about the legal aspects of this case, but this guy needs to grow the fuck up.

[DeSwiss]

99. I take issue with the headline.....

I mean I know it's only AP and they aren't to be expected to know any better, but how do they know he was "jilted?" Maybe she just got tired of the pinhead and she punted his ass.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jilted">jilted
jilt (jlt)
tr.v. jilt·ed, jilt·ing, jilts
To deceive or drop (a lover) suddenly or callously.
n.
One who discards a lover.

- From the way he's acting he is certainly seems like a pinhead to me.....

[alp227]

110. Greg FOOLtz might've stolen the photo too.

If he did I hope he gets sued out of his house for privacy violation too. He should never ever be able to have a girlfriend ever again, and he does not sound like he'd make a good father. I mean it's easy to whine "that's my baby" but actually raising a child? Actually takes a brain.

[plumbob]

124. I'd be happy to contribute to a billboard explaining how moronic,

inconsiderate, and unfit for parenthood the small-dicked asshole is.

Thank GOD he wasn't allowed to reproduce this time!


Involuntary sterilization is his best hope to keep from being euthanized in a rational world.

[WatsonT]

136. So he's taking the breakup pretty hard, huh?

I don't suppose this will help him get laid in the future.

[JAnthony]

137. Kind of amazing that any woman would have found him worth

sleeping with in the first place.

For sure, he now has a few million less women willing to date him. But he will find some Christian submissive woman to give him 4 to 10 children I bet.

[indypaul]

150. Has he established that it was indeed "his" child? N/T

[aikoaiko]

155. If he didn't name her or depict her in another way, can she say he libeled 'her' specifically.

Can't he just claim that it was another girlfriend or an imaginary girlfriend, or simply that he wasn't talking about her.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

180. Oh, but he did.

http://imgur.com/PnMEC

Nani is the GF, and it appears in his tweets too.

[aikoaiko]

181. Ahh, he tries to be clever with the acronym. I see that. Wonder if that matters?

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know.

[ellenrr]

163. what a putz! (the boyfriend)

he needs to get a life.

I bet it will turn out he was encouraged to do this by anti-choice folk.

[and-justice-for-all]

201. Ex-girl friend, not even his wife...

saying that, I feel that he did violate her right to privacy which is far more important to uphold then the dudes childish attact on her for making a decision. He most likely would not have paid child support anyway.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

208. Reading Yahoo comments on this story confirms for me......

....America is a bunch of idiots.

[Blue_Tires]

216. At least the girlfriend knows beyond a doubt that she made the right decision

And good luck to billboard boy ever getting a real date again...

[kenichol]

221. Yours is the best perspective I've seen

I live outside of Alamogordo and will get to share your prospective with Nani, the girlfriend.

[yurbud]

222. abortion is an issue where if the two parties disagree, there's no way to compromise

and make both happy.

You either get the abortion or you don't.

I don't like what this guy did, and I don't think guys should have the legal ability to restrain a woman from aborting their kid, but I feel his pain nonetheless.