Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard

[Fandango 1,440]

http://beta.news.yah...-194142831.html

If the billboard did not mention the woman's name, and there's no picture of her...what do you think?

Invasion of privacy, or right to free speech?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Really needed the third option of "argument between two chop####s"

[^_^ 5,021]

If the billboard did not mention the woman's name, and there's no picture of her...what do you think?

Invasion of privacy, or right to free speech?

I don't see how it's an invasion of privacy of there is no name or picture of the woman.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Depends on the size of the town. If Tony were to make a billboard and have HIS face there saying what this billboard did (except wife not gf) lots of people who know us would know who his wife is. I think this girls thing is the same. While not everyone would know who she is enough people would know who she is and it could destroy a lot of things. Think about everyone who would know them together. For me and Tony it would be his friends, my friends, our family, his work colleagues, my work colleagues, his families friends (thanks to FB etc) and it would expand as people see the billboard and talk about who that person is.

My issue is he could just gossip about her and he wouldn't be sued in the same way UNLESS it's a lie. If he believed it to be the truth then there's nothing wrong with it but I do think he's a classless person and it speaks more about him than her. If it's a lie well he should get into a lot of ###### for it.

[slim 1,533]

Right to privacy is covered under which part of the constitution?

[Harsh_77 718]

The girl says she had never discussed the pregnancy issue with him and then girl’s friend says it was miscarriage and not an abortion.

They were not married so don’t know how the guy is feeling he is left out of his fatherhood…..

This case is just crazy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Right to privacy is covered under which part of the constitution?

Are you serious?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Right to privacy is covered under which part of the constitution?

Multiple amendments cover it. However, none cover this billboard issue IMO.

[^_^ 5,021]

... can you please point out the part that says people have a right to privacy?

I realize you conservafreaks rely on the fact that the actual words "right to privacy" aren't in the Constitution. But if you are at all interested in how us libtards see the issue, feel free to read this page and learn.

[Brad and Vika 129]

Absolutely.

Once again, my comprehension seems to be lacking... can you please point out the part that says people have a right to privacy?

Which ones?

And if none cover this billboard issue, what do they cover?

What I'm wondering is if this woman wanted privacy, why did she come forward and reveal herself to the entire world? Couldn't she have denied she was the woman he was alluding to? And what kind of private person would publicly dmit they had sexual relations with that dude?

I have reproduced slim's last post here, and removed some baiting and posts quoting same. If it continues, thread bans and other admin action will follow.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I realize you conservafreaks rely on the fact that the actual words "right to privacy" aren't in the Constitution. But if you are at all interested in how us libtards see the issue, feel free to read this page and learn.

It's the same line of thinking that some believe the Constitution doesn't give women equals rights as men.

[^_^ 5,021]

It's the same line of thinking that some believe the Constitution doesn't give women equals rights as men.

The conservafreak line of thinking is easy to understand. Simple minds, and all that.

[slim 1,533]

if you are at all interested in how us libtards see the issue

I'm not. The constitution is a very simple document that even common folks can understand. If you disagree with it, that's not the same thing as "seeing it from a different side" it simply means you disagree.

The reason you folks are libtards is because you think just because you disagree with something you can claim it means something other than what it says. That's pretty libtarded.

It's the same line of thinking that some believe the Constitution doesn't give women equals rights as men.

It didn't. But, that was fixored.

If you (or anyone) doesn't agree with a certain part of the constitution, get it fixored again. People often point to the fact that the original constitution didn't recognize women and people other than white men as being whole. Well, that's been fixed. Why didn't they fix the other stuff that was wrong while they were at it?

The conservafreak line of thinking is easy to understand. Simple minds, and all that.

Exactly.

I don't understand why government has to be complex. Seems to me when it starts getting complex you don't ensure someone's rights, you ensure someone has a legal right to do wrong.

[^_^ 5,021]

The constitution is a very simple document that even common folks can understand. If you disagree with it ...

Had you read the link, you'd know it's not a matter of lay libtards simply disagreeing with it. But since you didn't read it and don't intend to, I suppose this conversation ends here.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It didn't. But, that was fixored.

If you (or anyone) doesn't agree with a certain part of the constitution, get it fixored again. People often point to the fact that the original constitution didn't recognize women and people other than white men as being whole. Well, that's been fixed. Why didn't they fix the other stuff that was wrong while they were at it?

Oh, ok. If you want to be literal, then the 2nd Amendment doesn't contain the words, 'handgun,' nor does it make any distinction as to what is and isn't an 'arm'. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say an 'arm' is a handgun, but not a tank, or a rifle, but not vile of anthrax?