A rchive Date
[ 12-06-2000 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Mass Media ]
|
[Crossing the free-speech line
By Kevin Poulsen, ZDTV
February 17, 1999 10:27 AM PT
The essential test of one's commitment to unbridled freedom of speech comes only when gazing into the abyss of the most vile, putrid utterance imaginable.
Case in point: the so-called Nuremberg Files, an inflammatory anti-abortion Website. Its creators were among those on the losing end of a $107 million lawsuit initiated by Planned Parenthood, the Portland Feminist Women's Health Center and four doctors, under the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. The ISP that hosted the site shut it down shortly after the verdict - and while the man behind the site, Neal Horsley, 54, promised that it'd be back, as of today it's still down.
The site - accented with animated graphics of blood-dripping fetuses - ostensibly anticipated the day when abortion would be criminalized, and doctors who have performed them would stand trial.
To that end, the faithful were encouraged to conduct surveillance on "baby butchers" engaged in "the wanton slaughter of God's children" and to submit evidence, such as photos of doctors and their families, home addresses and phone numbers, automobile license plates, Social Security numbers, and the names and birth dates of their spouses, children, and friends.
The site also included a long, neatly formatted list of doctors, in some cases with addresses, as well as judges, legislators, and police around the country. The list was dynamic: whenever a doctor was murdered by a pro-lifer, their death was immediately commemorated with a black line through their name. Doctors who were merely injured, had their names blurred in gray.
The site had nearly everything I revile most in one place: religious zealotry, moral self-righteousness, ignorance, hatred, and hypocrisy - all of which must be vigorously protected if freedom of speech is to be more than a nice idea.
But what about speech that kills? At least one of the decisions on the case is worrisome. In jury instructions, the court applied a standard for threatening speech based on whether the target reasonably feels that their life is in jeopardy.
Despite the fact that the Nuremberg Files never explicitly called for a doctor's murder, the case stripped it of First Amendment protection. In the wake of a string of executions by radical anti-abortion thugs, the doctors felt threatened, and that was enough.
Putting speech to a test based on how the target of the statements "feels" is dangerous. But there are realities here that I can't ignore. There's the reality of the three people whose names have been crossed off the list since its inception. There's the reality of the surviving doctors who feared for their lives, and for their families's lives, every day that they were on that list - and for good reason.
And there's the reality that the purported purpose of the site is a lie.
If abortion were to become criminalized, it would be inconceivable to charge anyone for an act that was perfectly legal at the time it was committed. Assuming the operators of the Nuremberg Files were completely ignorant of the Constitution's ex post facto prohibition - even as they sought refuge under its First Amendment - their commitment to an abortion tribunal fantasy doesn't explain why they sought information on doctor's spouses and children, as well as lawmakers, judges, and clinic security guards.
Stripped of pretext, the Nuremberg Files stands exposed for what it was: a database of hate. The list of names implicitly challenged the faithful to do God's work with rifles and sniper scopes. Each name that was crossed off - like a rival gang member's tag - was a victory cry and an exhortation for more violence.
The Website operator vows to appeal his loss all the way to the Supreme Court. He should. When the law punishes someone for their words, it should never be taken lightly.
But there's a line somewhere, and I believe the Nuremberg Files crossed it. I hope they lose, and the site stays down forever.
Copyright (c) 1999 ZDNet. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of ZDNet is prohibited. ZDNet and the ZDNet logo are trademarks of Ziff-Davis Inc.]
|