This site is still up and running, amazingly. I didn't think it would be,
because of all the controversy and this verdict. But all I had to do is
type "nuremburg files" into a search engine and I found it.
http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity/index.html
----------
> From: joe dees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Jury Finds Web Site a Threat
> Date: Wednesday, February 03, 1999 2:00 AM
>
> Jury Finds Web Site a Threat
> Rejects Free-Speech Argument,
> Awards $100 Million in Damages
>
> The home page from a controversial Web site called "The Nuremberg Files"
has an illustration of blood dripping from aborted fetuses. It lists the
names of abortion providers, their home addresses and license plate
numbers.
>
> By Lauren Dodge
> The Associated Press
> P O R T L A N D, Ore., Feb. 2 � A federal jury ruled today that a Web
site and �wanted� posters listing abortion doctors� names and addresses
amounted to death threats, ordering the site�s authors to pay damages of
more than $100 million. Striking a blow to militant online tactics in the
fight against abortion, the verdict could redefine what is considered
constitutionally protected political speech. The anti-abortion materials
contained no explicit threats of violence, only veiled messages, such as
crossing through the names of abortion providers who were killed. �The jury
saw the posters for what they are � a hit list for terrorists,� said Gloria
Feldt, the president of Planned Parenthood, the main plaintiff in the case.
�Whether these threats are posted on trees or on the Internet, their intent
and impact is the same.�
> �A Moral and Constitutional Outrage�
> Defendants had said that they would not pay any damages, no matter what
the verdict. One of the defendants, Catherine Ramey, sobbed as the verdict
came in, after more than four days of deliberations. �This is a moral and
constitutional outrage,� Ramey said afterward. She criticized the key
ruling by the judge, who defined threat as something that could be taken as
a threat by a �reasonable person,� rather than as something that made
lawless action �imminent.� �There was no threat and they knew it,� Ramey
said. She had testified that she would not so much as offer a tissue to an
abortion provider if he or she was shot. At issue was the �The Nuremberg
Files� Web site, which lists hundreds of �baby butchers� and invites
readers to send in such
> personal details as their home addresses, license plate numbers and even
the names of their children. The similar Wild West-style posters offered a
$5,000 reward for information about the �Deadly Dozen� doctors branded
�Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity.�
> Doctors Describe a Life of Fear
> Three times, doctors whose names appeared on the list were killed, most
recently last October when Dr. Barnett Slepian was gunned down by sniper
fire in his home outside Buffalo, N.Y. His name on the Web site was
> promptly crossed through. Throughout the three-week trial, held under
tight security, abortion doctors on the list testified that they lived in
constant fear, used disguises, bodyguards and bulletproof vests, and
instructed their children to crouch in the bathroom if they heard gunfire.
�This is terrorism,� plaintiffs� attorney Maria Vullo said in closing
arguments, pointing
> to a timeline of the four doctors and two clinic workers killed since
1993. �The message is, �Stop performing abortion or wear a bulletproof
vest.�� Attorneys for more than a dozen defendants, including the
antiabortion umbrella group American Coalition of Life
> Advocates, contended their clients were peaceful protesters engaged in a
vigorous political debate. But on the stand, defendant Andrew Burnett,
publisher of Life Advocate Magazine, conceded that doctors may have reason
to fear the Web site because of the extent of
> anti-abortion violence. �If I was an abortionist,� he said, �I would be
afraid.�
> Tactics Will Not Change
> Defendants had indicated that no matter what the verdict, their tactics
would not change. They also said any monetary award would have nothing
more than a symbolic impact because they have transferred their assets to
make themselves �judgment-proof.� The plaintiffs sued under federal
racketeering statutes and the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances
Act, which makes it illegal to incite violence against abortion doctors and
their patients. While the law has been used often against people who have
firebombed clinics or attacked doctors, this case, filed in 1995, was
believed to be the first not to result from a violent confrontation or a
direct, person-to-person threat.
> Joe E. Dees
> Poet, Pagan, Philosopher
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Access your e-mail anywhere, at any time.
> Get your FREE BellSouth Web Mail account today!
> http://webmail.bellsouth.net
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
