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.
To me this just seems to be a pissing contest.
If the US says it's illegal to put that info up on the site it will move offshore.
This is not about right-to-life versus pro-choice, it's about extremists who fuck everyone because they can't play nice. From the little-league mom who punches an umpire to the religious nut trying to blow up a bus load of tourists.
While I do agree that a relatively few bad apples give a bad name to religion, I don't think the analogy to race or sex is a good one, since religion is (theoretically) a choice one makes,. There are views and beliefs that ALL members of a given religion hold. Now sure, there are different subgroups that condone or reject various precepts, such as whether abortion is permissible, or whether violence is permissible, or what exactly constitutes a sacrament, and so on. But the fact that there are some things that all, let's say, Baptists agree on makes it far more reasonable to generalize about them.
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
In my mind, the site's talk of trying these individuals in legitimate courts does no more to mitigate the list of names crossing out those who have been killed than a disclaimer saying "don't download these programs unless you already own a licence" protects a warez site. Regardless of what precisely is said, it's clear what is meant. I'm sure I'm not the only person to come away with the understanding that to the site's author, more crossed-out names are better. Keeping in mind the history of anti-abortion terrorism, the real intent of this site doesn't seem very ambiguous.
Besides, these people could never be put on trial anyway, at least not in the United States. That would be "ex post facto" - making something illegal after it's already been done - and that is unconstitutional.
And even worse, the site names doctors that don't even do abortions! I personally know one of the doctors listed, and he has never performed an abortion in his entire career. All he's ever done is told women where they could go if they wanted one. And for this, he's somehow made his way onto the anti-abortionists shitlist.
This makes me so angry that someone would abuse the right to speech to the point where there is no choice but to suspend it. It only takes a few reasonably well organized sociopaths to ruin freedom.
Before you flame, I'm not saying that the court killed free speech (yes I read it), only that it makes me sad that any speech should be so inflamitory that the courts can justify shutting it down.
"as plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee" - Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. (One man's humorous is another mans flamebait)
Even though I am greatly against those who would take away our abortion rights, I agree with you. Everytime someone is told they cant say somthing, then there is a possibily that they may try to silence me. Its not often i find myself cheering for the christians, but cases like this are good to remind people that there are no good guys or bad guys. Ahh the joys of a civilization.
Mess Stuff Up
but i wish i could.
i used to think abortion was okay. i used to think i was "enlightened" for thinking so.
but after careful, deliberate thought something occurred to me: we don't know with absolute certainty that a fetus is not a living being. sure, the supreme court says that a fetus isn't viable until 6 months and therefore can be aborted, but i don't trust the supreme court any farther than i can throw clarance thomas.
what do the scientists say? they seem to be just as divided on this subject as the rest of the population. and this is the heart of the matter: we cannot say with absolute certainty when a fetus is a living being.
now, in almost every other aspect of human life, when the stakes are high, we tend to exercise more restraint. "err on the side of caution" as the saying goes. why are we so certain in this case that, since we can't be sure, it's okay to abort these pregnancies when we don't really know?
the last was rhetorical, of course. if i made you stop and think for a second, i've done my job. if you jerk your knee and retreat into the same old tired arguments, i've failed.
i hope you just stop and think. don't blindly believe what your teachers told you, don't believe what eMpTV tells you, and please, for the love of everything sacred, don't believe what CNN tells you. stop and think.
What if I listed all the leaders from all the countries of the world. Then by thier names, I put thier address, phone number and recent medical troubles. Would I be advocating any harm done to these poeple?
A more appropriate analogy would be listing the leaders of all the countries in world along with some accusation of war crimes and/or an explanation of why they're evil and need to be vanquished. As they were killed you cross them off one by one like a tick-tac-toe game. Of course the game isn't complete until they're all crossed off. You would be confident that enough people out there would pick up your signal about what needs to be "done" and you wouldn't have to worry because you would never get your hands dirty and would have plausible deniability as to your intent.
Now lets talk about groups that do similar things. the KKK is known to hate "niggers". Why is that? I don't know, since KKK idiots are too incoherent as to why the hate blacks. However, from one I know, the KKK wants them dead. Or lets visit neo-Nazis. What do they advocate?
Surely you can see the difference between a rant that advocates the death of an entire race (non-specific) and advocating the death of a particular individual at given address and phone number. What is the address and phone number of an entire race? It's the same as libel/slander. Someone might say "All priests are child molestors!" Which is of course false and an absurd statement. But no particular individual is being damaged by that statement. But when you accuse a particular,specific individual of being a child molestor knowing it's false you've committed slander. It's the same when dealing with general vs. specific with threats of violence.
Religion Rant: Why does so many people in here dismiss and/or insult religion?
Because of sites like these. Thank them for the bad taste many people have toward religion.
"So, in this vein, the anti-abortion crusaders who think it's okay to kill abortion doctors are standing on logical ground. If they're right that "human life begins at conception, " then they can even claim to be standing firmly on moral ground."
That sounds all fine and dandy until you put "authority" into the equation. If I read a law book and find out it's a $100 fine for running red lights, that doesn't give me the AUTHORITY to go out and fine people $100 for running red lights.
I wrote ~20 pages on fundamentalism and that was pretty much the summary of it all.
As a Christian who understands this very simple verse
Romans 12:19, "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (which by the way is 'written' in the OT). Yes the law is in the Bible but NO YOU ARE NOT GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE IT!
I find it disturbing and disgusting that people who claim to be Christian are so obviously acting against the will of their God.
I don't agree with abortion, I think it's wrong. But I also realize it's not my place to force my views onto people. I'd rather abortion were legal and people didn't do it because they didn't want to than force them to not do it. Smoking is legal and many people choose not to. Same with alchohol.
Stupid, stupid people advocating murder in the name of God or anything. Is the concept of "authority" really that difficult?
Ben
Work Safe Porn
we eat too much and shit in our own backyard
Maybe you do in your back yard but I have enough problems mowing with just the neighbor's dog's messes.
From my memory of the last time the Nuremberg List was posted on Slashdot, I predict that there will be at least two dozen posts talking about how the Nuremberg trials after the end of World War II were retroactive. They weren't. The surviving leaders of Germany and Japan (and the other Axis countries) were tried for violations international laws Germany had signed well before WWII.
The Geneva Conventions in question were first ratified in 1864 and later modified in 1906. They dealt with the treatment of the sick and wounded. Additions were made to the conventions in 1929 concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. There were more modifications made in 1949, but by then the trials were long done.
The Hague Conventions were first ratified in 1899 and modified in 1907. They dealt with certain kinds of weapons (such as chemical weapons) and outlined the treatment of both prisoners of war and civillians.
The Kellogg-Briand Pact, ratified in 1928, outlawed war as a tool of national policy (ie. aggression).
There were also a few other laws that were brought up (such as the naval law against false flags and such), but these were the big ones.
As can be seen, all of these treaties were drawn up well before the start of World War II. More importantly, Germany signed on to each and every one of these treaties, bringing themselves under their jurisdiction. This is similar to the way that Milosveic is being brought to trial for violations of the Dayton Accords (to name one) he signed on to years earlier.
Of course, the people who maintain the Nuremberg List are those kinds of people that, if you begin to understand their "logic," you should seek professional help...