[Free Speech?] Billboard claiming ex had an abortion

I doubt it.

Again following the example earlier when reporters report a crime such as rape or where a minor is a victim they don't report the victims name. They often report where the victim lives and even names of the victims family members. If you happen to know the people it will be pretty easy to figure it out who that is but to the wider public they don't. In this case it seems like none of us here no this guy or his girlfriend so as long as he doesn't name her she is still anonymous as far as the wider public is concerned.

Anyway even if that was his line of defense I don't think he would need to prove that he was cheating as that would violate his own privacy and / or anyone, if there is anyone, he is cheating with own right to privacy. All he has to say is that the "mother" is anonymous.

 

If she files a civil case of libel or emotional distress, its up to him to defend himself from the accusation. He can choose whether or not he wants to make various arguments, but the idea that he needs or doesn't need to do anything isn't really relevant. He can try to just say the mother was anonymous, but it really comes down to how the jury feels about it and whether they reasonably agree. If he does decide to use the "well I wasn't referring to her" line of defense, a jury's not likely to give it much credence unless he supports it with evidence. If he makes that line of defense, he can't hide behind "but I won't say who because I want to protect her privacy" - any jury would laugh at that.

Keep in mind also, unlike a criminal case, there is no "beyond reasonable doubt" standard involved here.

 

True it would be up for the jury to decide but at the same time he has a right to privacy and if he has to prove he was having an affair he would have to name whoever he was having an affair with which would violate their right to privacy.

I will go again to the example of what info about a victim reporters give out. Could a victim sue a reporter who reported on what street they lived and interviewed their neighbors without naming then?

 

That billboard is still there(at least it was about a month ago) however it looks very old and faded. It would be very hard to read if you didn't already know what it said.

 

He only has to prove he's having an affair if he makes that part of his defense. At that point, no one involved has a right to privacy - he's choosing to bring that up. If he wants to present to the jury "I was having an affair and was referring to the other girl, but I won't give any evidence of that fact", good luck to him - no jury is going to side with him based on that. And even so, that right to privacy when discussing what can be reported is for the media, not the courtroom.

 

True a jury would decide but you would have to consider whether the jury knew him or his girlfriend before hand. If they have no knowledge of him before hand why then would they necessarily presume that he isn't someone who has had affairs?

I would say the only thing in my mind that would damn him is that he originally had the name on the billboard. Now if he hadn't done that I don't see how we could have solid basis to judge whether that was the person he meant or not.

 

Yeah if it's a doctor's visit or something like that.

But if you tell someone something personal about yourself and they blab it all over than that's too bad.

 

It's just a political ad. The 'mother' doesn't have to be anything other than a rhetorical construct. Even if the woman could prove that he couldn't possibly have sired a child with any other person, it doesn't make the billboard about her. And, if she's telling the truth that she miscarried, then it really isn't about her.

Now, if he goes on to talk about her on twitter, he could be guilty of libel or public disclosure there. And the billboard probably makes that case more compelling. But the billboard by itself is just free speech.

 

As a side question, I'm somewhat confused- So TMZ doesn't need release forms from "public figures" but it must from regular people? Why is there a distinction? Why are public figures unprotected OR why are private citizens protected? I'm just looking for an explanation.