And you thought your ex was an asshole.
A New Mexico man's decision to lash out with a billboard ad saying his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes has touched off a legal debate over free speech and privacy rights.
The sign on Alamogordo's main thoroughfare 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!"
No, I'm not kidding. Oh, no:
What is there to say about something like this? It's horrid, spiteful, venomous and all around terrible.* It's also probably largely covered under free speech, except perhaps for one tiny detail:
The woman's friends say she had a miscarriage, not an abortion, according to a report in the Albuquerque Journal.
Holmes [Fultz's attorney] disputes that, saying his case is based on the accuracy of his client's statement.
"My argument is: What Fultz said is the truth," Holmes said.
And yeah, he better be basing his case on the accuracy of that detail because if it isn't accurate this could very easily transform from a free speech case into a libel case. And since Fultz's ex isn't a celebrity, she wouldn't even have to prove intent to harm. Despite my fondness for free speech, I honestly wish her luck on this one.
Personally, if I had a mullet like that, I'd be pleased a woman had consented to let me touch her at all.
* I'm not sure, but isn't it also poor grammar? I mean, shouldn't it read, "...decided not to kill our child" rather than "...decided to not kill our child"? Grammar nazis, let's hear it!