Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RON BL who wrote (134170)	3/29/2001 11:43:27 PM
From: Thehammer	Respond to of 769667

hi Ron, freedomforum.org SAN FRANCISCO — An anti-abortion Web site that listed the names and addresses of abortion doctors, branded them "baby butchers" and criminals is protected by the First Amendment, a federal appeals court panel has ruled. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday threw out a $107 million verdict against the activists who had compiled the information, saying they could be held liable only if the material authorized or directly threatened violence. The ruling in Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists came two years after a jury in Portland, Ore., ordered a dozen abortion foes to pay damages to Planned Parenthood and four doctors. They had sued under federal racketeering laws and the 1994 federal law that makes it illegal to incite violence against abortion doctors. The case was widely seen as a test of the 1969 Supreme Court ruling Brandenburg v. Ohio, which said a threat must be explicit and likely to cause "imminent lawless action." "If defendants threatened to commit violent acts, by working alone or with others, then their (works) could properly support the verdict," Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski wrote for the panel. "But if their (works) merely encouraged unrelated terrorists, then their words are protected by the First Amendment." Free-speech advocates agree. "In this instance, the courts have been asked to decide where free speech stops and a hit list begins," said Paul McMasters, The Freedom Forum's First Amendment Ombudsman. "Even some First Amendment absolutists find the facts of this case daunting, but I think the 9th Circuit got it right. We wouldn't need a First Amendment if it didn't apply to speech on the fringe — and the speech in this case is about as far out there as it can get and still claim the amendment's protection." Planned Parenthood said it would ask the court to reconsider its decision, or petition the Supreme Court to review the ruling. "We are obviously disappointed with the panel's decision and firmly believe that it is wrong," said Maria Vullo, the group's attorney. Planned Parenthood and the doctors were portrayed on Old West-style "wanted" posters passed out at rallies and on a Web site called the "Nuremberg Files," which listed abortion providers names and addresses and declared them guilty of crimes against humanity. The activists had argued the posters were protected under the First Amendment because they were merely a list of doctors and clinics — not a threat. They maintained they collected data on doctors in hopes of one day putting them on trial, just as Nazi war criminals were at Nuremberg. "I think it's a great relief that our posters are just as protected by the First Amendment as the posters of any other movement," said Christopher A. Ferrara, the attorney who represented the activists. "We were all accused of creating an umbrella of fear in the minds of abortionists that it wasn't safe for them to go to work," said Don Treshman, 57, of Baltimore, one of the activists. During the trial, U.S. District Judge Robert Jones instructed the jury to consider the history of violence in the anti-abortion movement, including three doctors killed after their names appeared on the lists. One was Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was killed by a sniper in 1998 at his home near Buffalo, N.Y. Slepian's name was crossed out on the Nuremberg Files Web site later that same day. Doctors who were on the list testified that they lived in constant fear, used disguises, bodyguards and bulletproof vests, and instructed their children to crouch in the bathtub if they heard gunfire. Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., who sponsored a bill that Congress approved in 1994 prohibiting violence or threats of violence at abortion clinics, said the ruling was a blow to that legislation. "My fear is that if this decision stands, we will see a renewed effort to intimidate, threaten and harm women and doctors in an effort to shut down clinics," he said. The defendants maintained they were political protesters collecting data on doctors in hopes of one day putting them on trial just as Nazi war criminals were at Nuremberg. After the jury's verdict in 1999, the judge called the Web site and the wanted posters "blatant and illegal communication of true threats to kill." The man who ran the Nuremberg Web site was not a defendant in the lawsuit, but his Internet provider pulled the plug on the site after the verdict. Among the defendants was Michael Bray of Bowie, Md., author of a book that justifies killing doctors to stop abortions. Bray went to prison from 1985 to 1989 for his role in arson attacks and bombings of seven clinics. Another defendant was Cathy Ramey of Portland, an editor at Life Advocate magazine and author of In Defense of Others, which defends people who refuse to condemn the killing of abortion providers.