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.
"And my friends wonder why i think religion is such a big joke..."
Do they also wonder why you are a biggot? Do they also ask you why you are so ignorant?
I find people who do nothing but stereotype others a big joke.
And by the way, no I am not at all religious, but I do respect peoples beliefs. I can also distinguish between the radical fringe religious sects, and the rest of Christianity.
-gerbik
I'm confused was it:
1. Because the posters were on the Internet? Everyone knows the Internet is made from computers. Geeks like computers. Slashdotters are geeks.
or
2. Because it has to do with the First Amendment. The First Amendment is about free speech. Slashdotters like free things, especially beer.
If you are pro-life, or have other non-PC beliefs, forget about the Bill of Rights. I hope that the Supreme Court bitch slaps the Court of Appeals.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Lets look at this logically.
:0)
1: A site that seems to be deeply against abortion posts all known doctors connected to that procedure. The names, adresses and phone numbers are all public knowledge (try phone book).
2: It is seen, by many doctors and others, as a threat to the doctors/families lives.
3: Law suit filed stating that web site is not covered under 1'st Amendment rights.
I'll bring up a few discussion points. First, since religion seems to be frowned in this place, I'm dismissing it from all my arguments (read below on rant about religion).
First, you can find many doctors in the Yellow Pages. Many support abortions, and even advertise such. That isn't illegal. You can also walk into the office, and you'll VERY LIKELY see a plackard of all the doctors in that facility. This isn't illegal, either. From the above 'legal stuff' you can do, reprinting _public knowledge_ is legal.
However, the accusation made is saying they are advocating/supporting this violence. It is true that that web site does, infact, have doctor damage charts indiciating the following: Alive, maimed, Killed. The way I'm understanding this accusation is that of the "Yelling Fire in a theater". The damage chart with contact info is supposedly the direct call to action. Yelling an emergency word like "Fire" is the description and directly implies "Get the fuck outta here!!!".
Lets look at this this from a different angle. 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? How about if I made an essay or 2 about political assassinations. Would I be considered making a violence advocating website?
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? Well, nothing except widespread destruction of the Jews. Hitler started with that plan. All they want to do is finish it. Why doesnt the government shut these places down? It is PROTECTED SPEECH.
Now I'm asking, What is the difference between "Widespread Destruction of a Race" and listing certain doctors, with the possible intent of Injury/Death ?
Religion Rant: Why does so many people in here dismiss and/or insult religion? Unlike most slashdotters, most of the US (and other countries) have strong ties in religion (mainly Christanity). Flatly insulting someones faith is GUARANTEED to TURN them diametrically against your ideas. I'm a Catholic, and I have many atheist friends. I implemented a polity with myself a long time ago: dont mention religion unless asked. Period. If you have an argument and you use religion as the "Trump" card, you've LOST. One time, a good friend (an atheist) got into a religious debate. I using facts about faiths, claimed that Atheism is a religion. Why? God is undetermined (cannot prove or disprove). Christans BELIEVE (using absolutely no facts in judgment). Atheists DISBELIEVE (using absolutely no facts in judgement). It is an interesting religion, in that it denies all underlying faiths in all religions. Regarding Abortion: I have successfully argued being against abortion. Remember what I said above: mention religion, lose argument. RANT ENDED. ahh I feel better now (sorta like after taking a dump- core dump that is
That you consider this to be "the crux of the issue" strongly suggests that your problem with abortion isn't the harming of innocent life, but that "those damned heathens are out there fornicating and I don't have any way to stop it!"
This is the sole reason why I (and many other moderates, I suspect) refuse to support the pro-life movement. A non-trivial number of pro-lifers aren't so much concerned with the life of the unborn child as they are about meteing out punishment to those who dared to engage in intercourse out of wedlock. If there were such fervor for the well-being of the child after birth as well as before it, then the protest-outside-of-clinics crowd would be picketing in the streets every time the local department of family services allowed a child to die at the hands of an abusive caregiver.
Instead, we often see a rather jolting shift in attitude after the birth of a child. What once was "a most holy and blessed fetus, not to be harmed in any way" suddenly becomes "the spawn of a welfare whore, sucking at the teat of government entitlement programs at the cost of productive taxpayers like you and me."
Of course, many (probably most) pro-lifers can stomach this hypocrisy as little as I can, and donate their time and money to protect children after birth as well as before. Yet the pro-life movement will never achieve any meaningful goals until it drives zealots like those behind the "Wanted: Dead or, umm, Dead" Nuremburg posters out of the movement.