Woman Decapitated Her 7-year-old Son With Kitchen KnifeWoman Accused Of Setting Ex-boyfriend On Fire On Easter SundayWoman Charged After Shooting Man In Head On Facebook LiveWoman Admits Beating Her Toddler To Death For Wetting The BedCanadian Man Lynched By Villagers In Amazon Rain Forest After Allegedly Killing ShamanBoy, 4, Mauled To Death By Family Dog While Playing In BackyardPersian Vegan Animal Rights Activist Kills Herself After Shooting Multiple People At Youtube HQ

ALAMOGORDO, N.M. — Currently, motorists on Alamogordo’s main thoroughfare are being treated to a billboard from a man saying his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes.

The (creepy) sign 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!”

As you can imagine, this has stirred up quite the debate. The ex in question has taken Fultz to court for harassment and violation of privacy in an effort to have the sign taken down, but Fultz’s attorney says removing the sign would violate his client’s right to free speech.

“As distasteful and offensive as the sign may be to some, for over 200 years in this country the First Amendment protects distasteful and offensive speech,” Todd Holmes said.

The ex-girlfriend’s attorney counters this by saying her client’s right to privacy has been violated and the billboard has caused severe emotional distress. She adds that she has no issue with Fultz arguing for father’s rights, just not at the expense of someone else’s private life.

Friends of the woman are saying she didn’t have an abortion, that she had a miscarriage. Obviously, if this were true the billboard would be really, really illegal. But Holmes says his case is based off his client’s claims that his ex had an abortion and he believes his client. He also believes the high court’s decision to allow the notorious Westboro Baptist Church to hold their ridiculous protests will help him ensure the billboard stays up.

“The Supreme Court, in an 8 to 1 decision, said that [very unpopular offensive speech] is protected speech.”

I’m sure we can turn the discussion into one based around a father’s rights in regards to abortions (a situation I was in at one time, so I feel for the guy) but what do you think? Do you feel Fultz is within his legal rights to post the ad?

Help The Dreamin Demon go ad free! Support us on Patreon!
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments


The views expressed in the comments are those of the comment writers and don't represent the views or opinions of D'D or its staff. Feel free to flag comments that may violate conditions outlined in our Disclaimer.