1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Over the line or Free speech?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!, Jun 7, 2011.

  1. Smash Williams

    Smash Williams Well-Known Member

    Yeah, given that, there's a pretty good invasion of privacy claim. Given that there's now a pretty solid reason for her to say she was ID'd and that I'm reasonably sure N.M. has a "publication of private facts" privacy tort, he is probably going to be writing a fairly large check.

    This was the thing where I found the N.M.-specific laws: www.peacocklaw.com/seminar/privacy.pdf

    Also, this graf made me want to puke. What a prize this guy is.

     
  2. Smash Williams

    Smash Williams Well-Known Member

    Unauthorized publication of someone else's medical history without their permission is not covered by the first amendment unless that person is a public figure and that medical history is relevant to why they are a public figure, IIRC.
     
  3. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    He probably should have incorporated himself, and he'd be golden.



    Innocent unborn children (or undeveloped embryos/fetuses)? Tragically stricken would-be parents (or unfortunate adults placed in horrible circumstances by their sexual choices or even sheer chance)?

    Ahhh who gives a shit. But if its a CORPORATION whose tender rights are being placed in jeopardy, you can be sure our corporatist-flunky courts will leap like a flash to its defense.
     
  4. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    I would think there would be one "reasonable person" in that town that would know who he was talking about. Unless the guy was sleeping around with a bunch of women.
     
  5. BUMP...
    Judge orders billboard taken down.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/23/judge-tells-boyfriend-to-remove-abortion-billboard/

     
  6. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Ridiculous.
     
  7. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Normally, when you file a lawsuit, you've made the issue a public affair and would be named in any news report about the lawsuit.

    FOX doesn't name the woman and also does not say why they haven't mentioned the woman.

    Obviously the guys whole point was to shame her, but are women who have had abortions (and/or miscarriages) now included with sex victims on the list of people who receive protection from the press and do not get named?

    I understand not wanting to reward the guy, but is it the right call?
     
  8. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    I'd love to know who owns the billboard.
     
  9. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Well, I'm certainly not advocating for the local paper to print the names of everyone in town who has had an abortion or miscarriage.

    But, legal filings are public documents and court cases routinely bring out matters that were previously private.

    And, normally when news org declines to name a person involved in a legal proceeding, they will make note that they are withholding the persons name and cite a policy spelling out the reasons for doing so -- as in the case of sexual assault victims.

    I just thought it was odd that FOX didn't name her, nor did they explain why they didn't.

    If you're not going to give us the "who, where, what, when, why," then you should at least tell us why not.
     
  10. britwrit

    britwrit Well-Known Member

    What about where you have staunchly anti-abortion politicians who have had or have arranged for abortions? (I'm thinking of alleged cases in the past involving pols from both parties.)
     
  11. terrier

    terrier Well-Known Member

    Google Karen Santorum. She swallowed her husband's crap so hard that she wanted her partial-birth abortion (because her life was endangered by the fetus' infection at 18-20 weeks) stopped mid-procedure. Fortunately, she came to the realization that going along with Rick's hard line would've deprived her two older kids of their mother.
     
  12. printdust

    printdust New Member

    If it endangers the life of the mother...I don't see the problem with that. Never have. It's the abortion by convenience......
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page