Slashdot Mirror
"Nuremberg Files" Appealed
Here's the
AP story.
The $109 million judgement against the "Nuremberg Files" is being appealed. This is the Web site that listed abortion providers with the implied message "Someone should kill these guys." As they were murdered, their names were crossed off the list. It should be said that nobody claims any direct connection between the murderers and the Web site. This is the most important case on the Internet's boundary of free speech, unlawful threats, and incitement to violence.
A hit list is free speech.
As long as it isn't used to kill people.
There are two problems with the 'Nuremberg Files' as I see it:
1. The people listed had their personal and private information on there without consent.
2. The maintainer of the site kept a track record of the fates of the persons listed.
Someone once said you don't need the first amendment to protect nice guys or nice speech. As despicable as these guys are, if we are to ban them because they "incite" murder, then banning DeCSS, reverse engineering, and everything else which "incites" law breaking is the next step.
These guys are disgusting. It is also disgusting the number of laws which ban thoughts and speech. Politically incorrect speech is grounds for expulsion from some colleges and most jobs. Freedom of speech is not adjustable. Either speech is free or it is not.
--
Infuriate left and right
I don't see what is hard about it. The web site listed the names and addresses of doctors who perform abortions. It also expressed the opinion that abortion was a crime against humanity. Nowhere did the web site directly incite violence against the doctors. In my opinion, they were well within their first amendment rights. Like many Americans, the pro-choice people are all in favor of free speech, as long as it only applies to people with acceptable opinions.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
You do not have a constitutional right to be fat, dumb and happy, protected from anything that might be offensive, embarassing, frightening or unsettling.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
This is protected speech according to current first amendment doctrine. You can also advocate the violent overthrow of the government. To be prohibited, the speech must be "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." See Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The list provides people with fuel to add to an already rising violent group.
What do you think about telephone directories? In my local yellow pages there is a big section titled "abortion". If someone has it in his mind to off an abortion doctor, Horsley's site doesn't do much to help him.
What this case is about is one group of people trying to silence people who feel differently than they do. If planned parenthood had put up a similar list, giving the same information it would have been considered a public service. Just because it was a group opposed to abortion who placed the information on their site, it's considered a "threat". Where does that end? If someone feels threatened, does that mean that you threatened them? FACE has even been carried to such an extreme that a man was sentenced to over a year in jail for parking a truck across the streed from an abortion clinic.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I say that if we could get enough volunteers to follow those listed doctors we'd accomplish several things. I mean silent people with laptops, cell modems and cameras.
1. Someone is going to be less likely to murder one of them if there are 10 witnesses nearby.
2. If we can let everyone who looks at one of the doctors know how s/he makes a living perhaps some of them could be shamed into a different profession.
3. If there is video of us being nothing but non-violent, the police would have a harder time justifying the abuse that pro-life demonstrators have had to endure in the not so distant past.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The whole thing is psychological warfare.
Every time someone tries to urge someone to stop doing something, be it smoking, eating meat, or aborting pregnancies you could call it psychological warfare, calling it that doesn't make it wrong.
If they weren't intending to threaten these people or intimidate them then ask yourself what they were intending when they put this up with dripping blood font and compared it to the Nazi War Crime Trials?
It's about trying to change minds. If you think that eating meat is murder, you'd be just as free to compare commercial farms and slaughterhouses to death camps. Have you ever seen an abortion? It can be a bloody procedure, what's wrong with depicting it in that light?
Things which you find uncomforatble aren't threats just because you don't want to see them.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The dripping blood obviously couldn't have been used because they people who run the site feel sorry for the children whose blood was spilled. Right?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
And I agree with you about trying to compare with commercial farms and slaughterhouse to death camps, but how many meat packers do you know that have been gunned down by a animal rights activist? It's all in the context.
In other words, it's different when it comes to abortion doctors. Or people who agree with you.
Doing my taxes makes me uncomfortable, changing a nasty diaper makes me uncomfortable, the thought of some loons putting up my name and all my vital information on a list with the names of others (and some that have been crossed out because they're murdered)... well that threatens me. And yet again it's all in the context.
You have no right to anonymity. If you're ashamed of what you do, maybe you shouldn't be doing it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
If they cared as much as they claim they do then why aren't they out there giving these woman help on alternatives to abortion, instead of making veiled threats towards the doctors?
No threats were made, the claim that there was is an obvious attempt to silence people who hold a different opinion. It's a violation of the ACLA's first amendment rights.
Why not go the ultimate step and volunteer to adopt and raise these children themselves?
Why not hold people accountable for their own actions?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
But to suggest that there's some kind of conspiracy to silence any anti-abortion opinion is just insane.
If you believe that, then you're either ignorant or a liar. FACE is even being used to arrest protestors who sit across the street from abortion clinics and pray. FACE is to prevent people for blocking clinics and threatening employees. If someone "feels threatened" by a group of people sitting across the street praying, that is enough for the police to roust them. It's not about protecting doctors anymore, it's about silencing people who disagree with the pro abortion position.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
i don't care much about abortion, as a single male it's not currently an issue i have any vested interest in one way or another.
You have the right to feel or not feel anyway that you want to about any issue, but please don't try to hang it on being a single male. I too am a single male, and I care deeply about the issue.
Even if fanatical anti-abortion xtians think abortionists should die
Several points here. Point #1. Not all of us are christians in the anti-abortion movement. I'm a neo-pagan.
Point #2 Those who advocate violence are not doing so to be punitive, if they were Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) would be dead, they believe that violence is justified when one is defending the life of a child. I don't think that anyone would dispute that deadly force would have been justified to take out the guy who was shooting kids in that school yard in Stockton CA. They abortion the same way.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Through this form of intimidation,
Where do you draw the line. Is an action intimidation simply because someone feels intimidated? How long will it be until something that you feel strongly about will be politically unpopular. When will protest pages on the internet that list e-mail addresses be called incitement to mail bomb?
Intimidation is one of the biggest inhibiators of speech!
Being afraid of shame isn't the problem of whoever is exposing the sameful things that you do. Over the course of my life, I've done many things that I'd prefer that people not know about. However, if someone gets the goods on me and chooses to tell all of those things, it's not intimidation regardless of how I feel about it.
Governmental and corporate influence is a far bigger threat to free speech than a list of names.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
If prosecuters can provide a reasonable argument that these these people helped provide criminals with usually hard to get information and provoked them into illegal acts, they're going to go on trial for murder too.
Just can't stand the idea of someone holding a different opinion than yours huh?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I believe it was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in an infamous case, Schenck v. United States, which upheld a World War I law that criminalized the distribution of anti-war literature. It was a low point for the first amendment.
What part of "no" in "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech..." did you fail to understand?
I also think it's false to say that the list "puts doctors in clear and present danger." This is because it gives nothing that a telephone book doesn't. It is in some sense the same as the Napster case - people providing an index that could be used for illegal purposes (although non-commmercial copying may not actually be illegal).
I think the list maintainers are evil people - but they have a right to say what they like.
-Dave Turner.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
linzeal is correct. There is no incitement anywhere in this document, therefore there should be no problem.
However, the problem lies with the people trying to shut the site down because they can not stand any criticism of abortion.
The document does describe abortion as murder. Perhaps this is the message that the folks bringing the charges actually wish to silence?
This topic was on 60 Minets (CBS Network TV) on 15 October, 2000. Another case was mentioned. Someone went to jail for parking a yellow Ryder moving truck in front of an abortion clinic. That was deemed some sort of implied "threat".
I certainly hope when the advocates for the doctors and the state, in both cases, manage to make someone "feel threatened" just because of what they are driving or a view that they hold, that those advocates will just turn themselves in at the local jail and save everybody the trouble of a trial.
There was no act of violence or threat of violence in either case and if you really want to get down to it, the only people, in either case, that were taking any life at all were the doctors when they killed the flesh of the fetus. Whether you consider that "murder", as the web site operators do, or if you just consider it a simple operation, as the doctors and patients do, the fact remains that the only people in these cases that actually destroyed a cell are the doctors.
If anybody actually wants to stop these doctors from being murdered, perhaps they should chase the murderers instead of the webmasters and truck renters?
Visit DC2600
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
I don't see what is hard about it. The web site listed the names and addresses of doctors who perform abortions. It also expressed the opinion that abortion was a crime against humanity. Nowhere did the web site directly incite violence against the doctors. In my opinion, they were well within their first amendment rights.
"Well I never told them to go out and kill those darkies. I mean sure I told them about how they were taking jobs away from them and liked to rape their woman and weren't really humans at all... but I never meant for them to go and kill people."
Speech does have context. Try to pretend otherwise but it does. If I walk up to a buddy and say in a cheerful voice "Hey you bastard! What's going on?" it's just two guys greeting each other. But if I say it to someone I don't know in a irrated tone of voice then it's possibly a prelude to a fist fight.
All information in italics from: http://www.netfreedom.net/nuremberg/.
The kind of information we need is material that will be acceptable in a court of law for identifying the child-killer and for proving the specific kinds of participation that each individual had in aborting children. We need the following:
1) Photos or videotapes of the abortionist, their car, their house, friends, and anything else of interest (as many and as recent as possible);
2) Current and past personal data including date and place of birth, home and business addresses and phone numbers, Social Security numbers, automobile plate numbers, names and birthdates of spouse(s), children and friends; Now why in the world would they want the names and birthdates of spouses, children and friends? Are they expecting to try these people too for something they didn't even do? Goering's family weren't even indicted at Nuremburg (which they're comparing this too) much less tried and he was the second in command of the Third Reich. ?
3) Criminal records, including driving record, mug shots, and fingerprint card;
4) Civil suit record, including informative depositions and divorce file (if any);
5) Affidavits of former employees, former patients, former spouses;
6) Newspaper clippings, news videos;
7) Statements of factual interest from investigators or pro-lifers who have had regular dealings with the abortionist;
8) Contemporaneous notes, journals, or diaries by surveillance workers, sidewalk counselors, or picketers; and
9) Anything else you believe will help identify and convict the abortionist in a future court of law. This one really irritates me. Do they honestly think that they are going to get these guys into a court of law? They're going to have one heck of a time getting a retroactive law into effect. They mean for these people to get the death penalty and it's pretty obvious the only way for this to happen will be if they give it out in their own court of law
We can end the Abortion War if we ram the images of the babies being slaughtered into the minds of every citizen in this nation.
Now I don't think this one needs much explanation. When ever you refer to being at war it's pretty obvious what you're getting at. When you use language like "babies being slaughtered" you're not going for the warm and fuzzy feeling. They are trying to incite rage in their audience and coupled with the names being crossed out, the dripping blood and of course the language it's pretty obvious what they're aiming for. So I will agree with you on one point. No they never flat out say "Go kill some doctors." It's just extremely heavily implied. They may be fanatics but they aren't stupid.
The dripping blood obviously couldn't have been used because they people who run the site feel sorry for the children whose blood was spilled. Right?
Nope. If they cared as much as they claim they do then why aren't they out there giving these woman help on alternatives to abortion, instead of making veiled threats towards the doctors? How about helping the woman support these children? Why not go the ultimate step and volunteer to adopt and raise these children themselves?
It's about trying to change minds. ... through intimidation.
And I agree with you about trying to compare with commercial farms and slaughterhouse to death camps, but how many meat packers do you know that have been gunned down by a animal rights activist? It's all in the context.
Things which you find uncomforatble aren't threats just because you don't want to see them.
Doing my taxes makes me uncomfortable, changing a nasty diaper makes me uncomfortable, the thought of some loons putting up my name and all my vital information on a list with the names of others (and some that have been crossed out because they're murdered)... well that threatens me. And yet again it's all in the context.
What do you think about telephone directories? In my local yellow pages there is a big section titled "abortion". If someone has it in his mind to off an abortion doctor, Horsley's site doesn't do much to help him.
Oh really? What about giving out their children's names? That's not listed in the telephone directory. Car tag numbers? Nope, not there either. The information contained on this site was much more then you could get out of a telephone book.
With that in mind the point of this website wasn't really to get someone out there to kill these doctors. It was to get around a existing law without having to get legislation passed. If you have a view point that you want others to adhere to but you can't get it passed into law or have the current law change, why not just frighten the people that are doing what you don't like into stopping? A few doctors get killed because of what they're doing, you put up a site with other doctors information on it and then cross out the dead ones. The one's on the list, and even those off it that are afraid of being put on it, will probably give really serious thought to getting into another line of medicine that doesn't require them to wear body armor and have a body guard. The whole thing is psychological warfare.
This is pretty close to the line of unprotected speech and when it comes right down to it I say they crossed the line on this one. If it had really just been common information available via yellow pages then I would say no, but they gave much more detail then that. If they weren't intending to threaten these people or intimidate them then ask yourself what they were intending when they put this up with dripping blood font and compared it to the Nazi War Crime Trials?
Its really more about the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act than first amendment. I really don't see this as a free speech issue as much as a liability/accomplice issue. If they ever catch one of these murdering anti-abortion types and can prove they received private information from "The Numermberg Files" then these "God's children" will be in a very, very bad situation.
If prosecuters can provide a reasonable argument that these these people helped provide criminals with usually hard to get information and provoked them into illegal acts, they're going to go on trial for murder too.
I can't wait to see their upcoming web video of abortions, maybe I'll put up an at home coathanger style abortion and let people decide which one is best for "God's Children."
BTW, the decss comparison sucks and has nothing to do with this case, if computers are all you can relate to then you've got a problem.
My gut feeling tells me that this desicion was correct, while the deCSS desicion was wrong. Why?
I guess the difference lies in the fact that this list was a threat to those doctors freedom (not ot mention life), while deCSS if merely redistributing some cash.
So, the only thing more important than one persons freedom is other peoples freedom.
But, as I said, this isn't easy
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Not all gynecologists or obstetricians perform abortions. Looking in a yellow pages for abortion won't give you the name of every doctor who performs abortions. This web site does so in a unified and public way.
Napster allows people to copy other people's files. That may or may not be illegal, depending on the file, the author's permissions, the file's owner's consent, etc. This site incites people to commit murder, which is always illegal. By crossing names off, it provides a sort of reward to the people who commit these crimes.
This isn't about the speech on the site. They can criticize these doctors and their actions without demanding that the doctors be killed.
To paraphrase, this site's right to swing its fist ends at these doctors' noses.
Josh
Speech is NOT free in this country, nor is it ever likely to be. The 1st Amendment has attracted considerable judicial review, and IMHO some of it is justified.
This is (theoretically) a democracy, and we're supposed to have more civilized ways of public discourse than assassination. Or advocating it. It is not and should not be legal to threaten publically the life of another human being or advocate their demise. What sort of pathetic, empty "right" is that? What's the 1st Amendment for, if not the protection of human rights, chief among them the human right to life?
This is not a slippery slope. There are many methods of disagreement and speech. You're still free to disagree with anybody. But democratic states are founded on one principal: We're stronger together than alone. The purpose of a group is to protect its members. We do that with laws. Your right to run your mouth is not more valuable to the group than my right to breath.
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
The law of freedom of speech stretches enough that you cannot cause harm to someone. Would you say that libel and slander are protected under the First Admendment? After all, they're speech. But they cause harm to someone's character, and are therefore illegal. You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded area, causing a panic or near-riot. This again is harmful and illegal.
And this list gives much more than names. It gives a list of address of people who perform abortions. Usually you can look in a yellow pages and find the name of a clinic, SOMETIMES finding a doctor's name, but not always. And not all clinics perform abortions. But this site was asking for information like family names and information, license plate numbers, etc.
If you haven't noticed, there are zealots out there killing these "monsters", just because they can or will perform abortions. Giving access easily to personal information, cars they drive, their children, etc., is just asking for trouble. And as such, should be illegal. And this is perfectly in line with the First Admendment.
BTW, notice how the people who say "All speech is protected" get insightfuls in this post, and those who agree that speech which places others in personal harm get no moderation? Where's the priorities?
Dragon Magic
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
The following is a somewhat objective site on this very matter. Planned Parenthood vs. American Coalition of Life Activists Trial Transcripts and Documents
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
show me where on this site that they specifically say "Go kill you some doctors"
Chris Welsh
Anarchists for Life
http://www.mindspring.com/~anarchsforlife/afl.htm
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Also included in the site was any information they could get people to send them about the listed people - up to and including home address,license plate #'s, children's names, schools & pictures, social security #s...etc. They encouraged people to essentially stalk doctors by following them around, taking pictures of them, their homes & cars, and digging up any info they could to send to the Nuremburg Files...
I'm pretty rabidly in favor of free speech, but I think this amounts to invasion of privacy and an implicit threat to the doctors' & nurses' lives & families.
Then again, I used to check that list worriedly fairly often for names I knew...
"We can't all, and some of us don't." -- Eeyore