In American culture it has become a tendency among our citizenry to declare rights into societal recognition. We vehemently proclaim: “I have a right to… [insert important issue here]”! It seems that we have been endowed with this innate presumption that we can declare powers and liberties over things.
These presumed or declared rights, whether rightly founded or not, typically metastasize into something grotesque and mutinous. Growing and growing until they are completely unrecognizable from their origin, which usually has a vague link to one of the “inalienables.”
However, there arises a rare occasion when a citizen chooses to test the boundaries of our acknowledged inalienable rights. This citizen usually becomes the cause, sacrificing life and limb for its noble ends.
Recently such a case came to my attention—well, maybe. A young man, Greg Fultz, thought it to be an exercise of his right to free speech to purchase a billboard ad of himself holding a silhouette of a baby. The baby was his, or would have been anyway:
So, I am left to wonder:
Is Fultz “exercising” his right to free speech?
Is Fultz’s exercise of free speech, concerning the death of his child, harassment and a violation of the privacy of the mother?
And finally, is there any hope for the Father’s Rights argument in a case like this?