Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Finds "Nuremberg Files" Site Unlawful
Greplaw writes "The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this evening that an anti-abortion website that featured "wanted" posters of various abortion doctors constituted a "true threat." The website, called The Nuremberg Files, is therefore not protected by the First Amendment and is illegal under a 1994 law prohibiting threats against abortion doctors. The full opinion of the court is available on Findlaw. This case marks one of the first times that a website has been ruled to constitute such a threat." Our previous story has the background on the case. The District Court found the website was an unlawful threat; a three-judge panel of the Appeals court found that it wasn't; and now the entire Appeals court has found, by a 6-5 vote, that it was indeed unlawful. The case could be appealed to the Supreme Court next. The accepted definition of a threat unprotected by the First Amendment is one which "on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution", and there is considerable dissent among the judges over whether a website can or cannot meet that standard.
For those who aren't to familiar with it all
b orts.ht ml
:)
Heres the old site archived in a sense:
http://www.lancasterlife.com/atrocity/
Heres the newer site:
http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity/a
One of the more disturbing/interesting(guess it depends on your views) about the above site is how they list all the abortion doctors they have info on... black for alive...greyed for MAIMED.. and strike-through for killed(they call it fatality)...
And my friends wonder why i think religion is such a big joke...
P.S. learn how to copy & paste
looking at the new Nuremberg Files, 6 new names have been added...plus a crappy junior-high schooler flash animation of what they think of the 6 judges.
Pure propoganda......they say "They [judges] say it is illegal to publish names"....
right...that's "all" they are doing...just being a phonebook
Check it out for yourself. Cells. Caution not for the weak of heart.
It is too bad that the fundies have seized hold of this issue and bundled it with their twisted worldview.
The real question is when do you call your "bundle of cells" a human being. I believe that long before a baby is born they should be given the same basic human rights you and i enjoy. Just because a fetus cannot speak for themselves does not mean that they are inanimate objects that can be flushed down the toilet without regard.
So if I jokingly say "I'm going to kill you" to a person who cuts in front of me in the lunch line, that's one thing; but if I say the same thing in a dark alley while holding a gun to someone's head and asking for his wallet, that's quite another.
Basically, I read this ruling as essentially saying that the Nuremberg Files web site met the imminence test, given the number of people who were assaulted and/or killed once their personal info got posted on the site. As far as I can see this ruling does not change the Brandenburg standard, which I personally think gets it just about right in striking the balance between threats/harassment/verbal abuse and the First Amendment.
(Of course IANAL, so maybe someone who IAL can correct any mistakes I've made above.)
I am a pro-choice advocate. Woman's body, woman's choice. There is nothing I have seen, read, or be taught that shows me abortion is wrong. I won't go into details because that's not the point.
/. is as pro-choice as I am. In fact, it's probably half. This post should be mod'ed up and up and up so that it gets read by everyone. If only half the posts on /. were this insightful.
The point is, this gentleman has made a very decent argument in favor of pro-life. There is nothing rude, offensive, or inappropriate about this posting. It's intelligent and well written.
Why the hell is he being negatively moderated?
This post is NOT a troll, you fools! Attention to moderators: just because YOU disagree with someone's ideas, DOES NOT give you the right to silence them. I am sure not everyone on
But that won't stop assholes with mod points. Just note that you will be meta-moderated accordingly, and I am one of those who meta-moderates daily.
Why bother.
Thats Nürnberg.
If you are going to be pedantic, at least use the correct spelling yourself.
The accepted definition of a threat unprotected by the First Amendment is one which "on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution", and there is considerable dissent among the judges over whether a website can or cannot meet that standard.
Of course a web site can meet that standard: (16 pt type) KILL THIS MAN (picture) (name and address) (why he should die) (suggested assassination methods, where to buy sniper rifles, car bombs, etc).
It is illegal to say "Kill this man", when it's clear that you really mean it, and it's still illegal if you direct this message to the general public (through a web site, a broadcast, or a speech) rather than a specific person.
The question is whether this particular web site meets this standard, because it does not explicitly tell anyone to kill the abortionists it identifies. It's a borderline case. It's pretty clear that the authors of the web site hope someone will do something bad to the persons named, but it may not even say abortionists should be killed (or even harassed) - it just attracts those who do believe that. IMO that is the web site authors' intention, but if they were careful about what got recorded in e-mail or print, that may be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Think about the principles here in a less emotional case. How about a web site that says "Commodity traders are scumbags who ought to be shot", and "John Doe is a commodity trader". It leaves it up to the reader to complete that syllogism. Is this protected speech? Is the author responsible if some unsuccessful investor reads the web site, then in fact shoots John Doe?
How about if the web site doesn't explicitly say anything against commodity traders, aside from a URL like "commodityfraud.com"? It just gives the traders' name, address and picture - and it is going to be found by people with a grudge against commodity traders.
I think the "nuremberg" web site lands somewhere between those cases. It is knowingly set up to be easily found by those who do want to kill abortionists, it makes it easy for them to find their victims, and it probably avoids directly telling them to kill but gives a certain amount of moral encouragement.