Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"Nuremberg Files" Appealed

Posted by jamie on from the boundary-conditions dept.

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.

3 of 55 comments (clear)

  1. This is what the first amendment was meant for by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 3

    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
  2. Re:Was it John Adams... by Xenu · · Score: 3

    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.

  3. Re:I have to agree by B.+Samedi · · Score: 3

    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?