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.

Comments

The bottom line:

[ObviousGuy]

Publishing public information: Okay

Publishing same information with encouragement to kill the people on the list: Not Okay

Understanding the Pro-Life movement's basic argument and agreeing with it are totally understandable. Understanding the steps to get from "life begins at conception" and "life should be protected" to "kill abortionists" requires understanding huge leaps in logic.

Re:The bottom line:

[Chasing Amy]

> Understanding the steps to get from "life begins at conception" and "life should be protected" to
> "kill abortionists" requires understanding huge leaps in logic.

Not really--think about it in simple, logical terms, and the natural conclusion of the anti-abortionist argument is that abortion doctors are performing a murder with every abortion they do. If life begins at conception, abortion doctors are taking lives. Is it acceptable to use deadly force to prevent someone from murdering other people? Yes, in most Western legal systems, moralities, philosophies, and religions, it is acceptable to use deadly force if it is the only way to stop one person from murdering another--at least, if that threat is immediate.

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 isn't to say I agree in any way or condone the murder of abortion doctors. First of all, I don't really care when human life begins--conception, birth, or otherwise. Who can know for sure? Why should I care?

I'm pro-abortion. The oft-used terms are "pro-life" or pro-choice," but I think that's just so much marketing claptrap--the debate is about abortion, not lie or choice. I think everyone is for both life and choice, in their general meaning, so I always use the straightforward and honest terms "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion."

At any rate, I'm pro-abortion because I think it makes sense. Firstly because, as I said, no one can say with any real meaning when human life begins. Short of God himself telling us in person what he considers to be the point at which human life begins, it's an unanswerable question since it's entirely religious or philosophical and can have no definite scientific answer. Secondly, abortion serves a useful practical purpose of population control, which is important in the modern world. Thirdly, I value sex and see it as an essential part of the human experience which everyone should freely enjoy, but no methods of contraception are 100% effective. Fourthly, it's almost impossible for young people to both care for a baby and go to school, and in this day and age school usually has to last until around 21-22 years old (college) to ensure a decent living--so abortion is a necessity to make sure young people can enjoy sex without having it ruin their lives. Fifthly, almost every developed culture since the ancient Greeks practiced abortion or infanticide right after birth--this includes Christians up until the last couple of centuries; until medical sciences started showing the development of babies inside the womb, the Church held that life began when the baby popped out.

I'm also pro-abortion, finally, because it's not my damn business to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body. If she wants to let someone shove a metal rod into her uterus, that's her business, not mine. Whether there happens to be a bunch of cells in her uterus at the same time makes no difference--inside her body, her rules stand.

Re:The bottom line:

[Creedo]

Well, your honest, but wrong.

"Fifthly, almost every developed culture since the ancient Greeks practiced abortion or infanticide right after birth--this includes Christians up until the last couple of centuries;"

You are correct that cultures such as the Roman Empire practiced abortion, but perhaps you have not actually read what the actual Christians actually thought about it:

"...you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born..." - Didachecirca 100AD

"Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born." - Epistle of Barnabas circa 74AD

"And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became there as it were a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion." - Apocalypse of Peter circa 130AD

...and so forth. If you are interested in more, searching for 'church fathers' and abortion on google would do you well.

The Church never defined when life began. The only discussions one could enlist on this point would be some musings on when ensoulment happened, but even then, it was agreed that it is still murder. This is often trotted out by pro- abortion Christians, but if you actually read the documents they point to(such as the 25th chapter of Augustine's Enchiridion) you find a different story.

"no one can say with any real meaning when human life begins."
"[it] can have no definite scientific answer"

Only if one has an idealogical axe to grind. Read an intro to biology textbook sometime, and you will find a fit with the definition of life.
Secondly, your opinion that this ok's abortion would be criminal negligence in any other case. Third, you obviously don't believe it, or at least you act that way, because you willing to risk the possibility of a loss of human life. It would only be unimportant if you have already decided that it isn't a human life.

"abortion serves a useful practical purpose of population control, which is important in the modern world"

I suppose when one lacks a basic respect for human life, one can come to conclusions like this. Despite the fact that even the UN is starting to worry about population decline, talking about such things as raising fertility and adjusting migration laws(read the PDF at that link).

"Thirdly, I value sex and see it as an essential part of the human experience"

Ah, the crux of the issue. "Who cares if it might be a human life? It's in the way of my rutting." I'd laugh if this weren't so damn pathetic. It's exactly this type of idiotic lack of self control that leads directly to the type of STD epidemics we see today. Essential? Go ask an AIDS patient if they still think their sexual activity was "essential." Or wait until you get the news that you have the honor of living with herpes the rest of your life, and then contemplate whether it was "essential."

"it's almost impossible for young people to both care for a baby and go to school"

Well, then, I am the master of the nigh impossible. I did it twice. And I am not alone, nor am I exceptional in that regard. I was a full time parent, a full time student, and I held down a part time job on the side. It didn't require "killing one's child." But it did require "personal resposibility," a concept that is probably lost on many /. readers.

"I'm also pro-abortion, finally, because it's not my damn business to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body"

Of course, that isn't the issue. The issue revolves around whether or not that woman is harming someone else's body. The location of that body is immaterial. If that baby is human, she has no damn business killing it.

Creedo

Re:The bottom line:

[KalvinB]

"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

Regardless of your views on abortion....

[phunhippy]

For those who aren't to familiar with it all

Heres the old site archived in a sense:
http://www.lancasterlife.com/atrocity/

Heres the newer site:
http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity/ab orts.ht ml

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 :)

Same old web problem

[thinmac]

This seems to me to be another issue where people have decided that the fact that something is on the web makes it different from other mass media. It may (or may not, given the state of most search engines today) be a more effective means of dessiminating information, but it's goal is the same as that of print magazines or tv or annoying "lose 30 lbs in 30 days" messages: getting information to a large number of people.
What the judges should be asking themselves is not 'does something on the web constitute a threat' but rather 'if they put this on a billboard in times square, would it constitute a threat'.

The 'Target Market' (PNI)

[The Rolling Blackout]

A factor that I don't feel has recieved due consideration in similar cases is the readership/target audience of websites under scrutiny. For example, certain websites such as this one might occasionally feature posts by those who have us all commit DDoS attacks on, say, PanIP's servers. This is not on its face a great deal different if one subtracts the qualitative difference of murder vs. 'Information Warfare' (One could also argue that such an operation is much more easily 'immediately executed' since the tools for DoS'ing someone are often one and the same as for reading said post, whereas a murder has yet to be performed via packet-switched network).

Hopefully it could be shown in court that the vast majority of /. readers are not likely to perform such an act, regardless of how inflammatory the statement maybe. In the case of bloody-minded anti-abortionists, however, this is obviously not the case.

My point is this: In previous rulings concerning this exception to the first amendment, it has been the case that the audience could be observed to be a volatile mass and thus likely to be swayed by hateful and threatening speech. Regarding websites, this issue becomes murky and threatens to turn any ruling either way into the dreaded first step down a slippery slope. I should expect my example above illustrates how this could be used to control expression in any number of forums.

What this really means about our rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the opinion carefully. While any ruling on 1st amendment rights deserves careful review, this one, on the whole, strikes a balance in favor of liberties.

Let's consider what's going on here. The web site in question created "wild west" style posts of abortion doctors, and updated lists of those doctors that had been assassinated. (There are a number of criminal cases where physicians were attacked--even killed--because their name appears on hit lists.)

Now, we enjoy a right a free speech. But we do not have a right to threaten the safety of other individuals. When threats are made against individuals, the balance of interests between individual expression and individual safety shifts to the threatened.

Now, let's be clear about this. The hit lists were not mere trash talking in a chat room. They were not even generalized expressions of rage about doctors who perform abortions. Instead, they were lists created with the express, explicit purpose of organizing others to harm physicians. This is not my interpretation of the site mirrors I visited. This is also the opinion of most of the 9th circuit. Now, only a bare majority of the court felt the threat was sufficiently immediate to tip the balance for individual safety. But most of the court sided with the opinion that the site was designed to promote violence against doctors.

We should be cautious about restrictions on freedom of expression. And it seems that this is exactly what has taken place here: A serious, careful, factually detailed analysis for the circumstances of this case. There are no categorical rulings about web pages. This is not even a "technology" story, except for the fact that the hit list was online. (The same ruling might have obtained if the lists were merely on paper and sufficiently circulated.)

So, while I'm don't enjoy opinions that side against the big 1st A, I have to realize that our liberty in expression must, like all liberties, reach a limit when it bumps up against other rights and interests. I have to side with personal freedom and liberty.

As a closing note, I don't like abortion either. And I also don't like capital punsihment. But we should not let passion excuse us from the political process. Murder is wrong. If we disagree with a person's practice and work, we have a system of laws to change, or live by if we fail in this endeavor.

Glad to hear it.

[AlexB892]

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.

Torn!

[SuperguyA1]

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.