More stuff for Freenet, it seems. I'm really curious how "they" would
consider handling such documents instead MP3s - better or worse?
Mark
X-Loop: openpgp.net
From: "A. Melon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 3:40 PM
Subject: Abortion Assasination Politics likely going to Supremes
>
> So when is APster coming out, which lets
> you trade lists of deserving people?
>
>
>
> Tuesday September 12 5:11 AM ET
> Abortion Web Site Verdict Appealed
>
> By WILLIAM McCALL, Associated Press Writer
>
> PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Anti-abortion activists are
> asking a federal appeals court to overturn a $109 million
> verdict by a jury that decided a Web site and posters listing
> the names of abortion doctors and clinics were threats that
> went beyond free speech.
>
> The case is widely seen as a test of a Supreme Court ruling that
defined a threat as
> explicit language likely to cause imminent lawless action - and a
measure of how
> far anti-abortion activists can go in harrying doctors and clinics.
>
> Oral arguments in the appeal are scheduled Tuesday before a panel of
the 9th U.S.
> Circuit Court of Appeals.
>
> At issue is a Web site called The Nuremberg Files that listed
hundreds of abortion
> doctors accused of committing crimes against humanity and invited
readers to
> send in doctors addresses, license plate numbers and even the names
of their
> children.
>
> Last year, the dozen anti-abortion activists argued the posters and
Web site were
> free speech protected under the First Amendment. Critics called it a
hit list.
>
> The jury was told by U.S. District Judge Robert Jones 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 gunned down by a sniper in
October 1998 at
> his home near Buffalo, N.Y. Slepians name was crossed out on The
Nuremberg
> Files Web site later that day.
>
> In 1995, Planned Parenthood and four doctors sued the anti-abortion
activists 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.
>
> Jones told the jury the Wanted-style posters and Web site were not
free speech if
> a reasonable person could perceive them as threats.
>
> But a number of legal experts have criticized the February 1999 jury
verdict and
> those instructions, saying a threat must be explicit.
>
> If youre looking for a case likely to go to the Supreme Court, this
is one, said Lee
> Tornquist, a law professor who specializes in the First Amendment at
Willamette
> University in Salem, Ore.
>
> Others consider the jury decision sound.
>
> Margie Kelly, spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Law and
Policy in
> New York, said Jones correctly told the jury to weigh any threat in
context.
>
> This is a case that is built on history, Kelly said. You have had
years of arson,
> shootings, death threats. How can that context be considered anything
but a threat?
>
> The Georgia computer programmer who ran the Nuremberg Files was not a
> defendant in the lawsuit. After the verdict, his Internet provider
pulled the plug on
> the site.
>
> Among the anti-abortion activists appealing the ruling is Michael
Bray of Bowie,
> Md., author of a book that justifies killing doctors to stop
abortions. Bray served
> time in federal prison from 1985 to 1989 for his role in arson
attacks and bombings
> of seven clinics.
>
>