[Free Speech?] Billboard claiming ex had an abortion

It may be legal but anyone who isn't a public figure on TMZ has signed a release.

 

So Pippa Middleton and all of Tiger's girlfriends, etc, have signed releases?

 

Does he have proof she had an abortion? If her lawyer says it was a miscarriage, and he has no proof otherwise, then I'd think she has a case that the sign is libelous.

 

if you read some of the supporting facebook pages, etc. it appears that one of the "potential" motivations for the sign was the fact that he doesn't know what happened - abortion, miscarriage - or at least doesn't believe what she said.

apparently he's in his 30's, she was 19. she also had some physical disabilities. and apparently the sign has changed a bit, and at one point did include her name... maybe, not sure??

Legality aside, though, this guy is clearly a lunatic, and the girl should consider herself lucky this is the worst that happened.

also, funny how it's sponsored by gefnet... which appears to be his crappy small business there... like he was trying to get some business out of it or something?

 

Not true. You can be sued on ground of violation of privacy (embarrassing private facts) even if true.

 

Some of Tiger's girlfriends have for sure. The are others that I've seen that wouldn't be identified by name.

 

This is what I'm thinking. Since she's not a public figure, I don't think she even has to prove intent for the libel/slander charge. If nothing else, she could probably sue him for emotional distress/etc.

I'm not a lawyer, but I wouldn't think the fact that the name wasn't on the billboard is legally relevant. By putting his face out there and being public about the billboard, you can reasonably expect that her name will come out.

 

If she had an abortion that he did not want then talk to friends, family, therapist or someone you really trust about the issue. That is what most "normal" people do. I think the billboard is covered by free speech, but the intent was to disgrace and humiliate the ex wife. I think now in turn it will be equally humiliating for him.

 

This guy is an ******* with a capital A.

 

Couldn't help but remind me of this:


I saw him briefly interviewed on CNN. He kept saying it had nothing to do with the mother and he moved on, it was a long time ago and he doesn't even think about her, etc. He could not seem more to the contrary though.

 

I see nothing wrong with it

Didn't use her name or likeness.
He can do what HE wants with HIS likeness.

Rocket River

 

Interesting . . . .
If a woman says he is the father. . .HE HAS TO PROVE HE IS NOT.
but
in this case. . . she does not have to prove she did not have a Abortion.
Wouldn't she need to provide a doctor's invoice etc.
Which . .. seems less an invasion of privacy than a mandatory blood test.

Rocket River

 

Name or likeness... but he did make a direct reference to her... in addition to calling her a "murderer"... and speaking publicly about her private life...

It's not just as simple as "no name + no face = no crime".

 

Did he really make a "direct" reference to her, though? He referred to her as "the mother." I feel like he could claim that it isn't the ex-girlfriend he's referring to.

 

Damn, that picture looks like it was taken straight from Awkward Family Photos.

 

That would be my understanding that since he doesn't name a name it could be any other woman.

 

That would only matter if she demanded he pay for the abortion.

 

Would be interesting to see who he claims it was, then...

Cause if that was the case, then that would make him a cheating b*stard.

So much for the moral high ground, I guess.

 

It would but that really isn't relevant to whether this is a free speech issue.

 

It's relevant in the sense that, if the only way he can dodge legal responsibility is to claim it was someone else's child... would he... and if he did, would he have to prove it?