Reply #97: Here is the Billboard:

[Meldread]

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.