The 9th US Circuit Court protected the Anti-Abortion Site which had listed the names and address of abortion doctors.
Edited to add: If you want to read the article, you'll need to click on US at the bottom of this page. Then scroll down to the article.
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 29, 2001 06:39 AM ]
posted on March 29, 2001 08:06:39 AM new
Thanks for the post Linda_K. I guess someone else will have to be murdered by someone who "heard God," and went to that website for an address of someone to kill before the court gets it.
Though I am pro-choice, I have no problems with websites, books, pamphlets, etc., that state that "abortion doctors" are killers, there can be no excuse for publishing names and addresses.
The agenda (to incite some poor psycho to kill) of a site like that is obvious and cowardly. It's a slap in the face to good Christians everywhere.
Planned Parenthood isn't the only one who lost this round, we all did.
posted on March 29, 2001 08:12:58 AM new
"Defendants can only be held liable if they authorized, ratified or directly threatened violence", Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski said.
"The Nuremberg Files" is a website which contained a list of doctors who provide abortions, and, in some instances, displayed their photos, addresses, car license numbers and names of family members (it is now hosted on a South African ISP). In short, the Federal court says "wanted" posters of doctors do not make up a real threat. So does this mean that school kids can have posters of fellow teachers and students as "wanted", but it doesnt constitute a threat?
[ edited by Hepburn on Mar 29, 2001 08:14 AM ]
posted on March 29, 2001 08:18:04 AM new
"Planned Parenthood lost this 'round'"
How inutterably stupid can anyone get? Sure, publish the private info of those doctors far and wide so that hopefully every whacked out hinckley type looking for an aim for his madness can find a target and derive justification from the lord.
posted on March 29, 2001 09:27:49 AM new
Seems alot of problems occur when the copout "free speech" comes up. It all depends on who is doing the speechifying, right?
posted on March 29, 2001 10:48:16 AM new
Thanks for the info, Linda_K.
A few years ago I saw the website just before it was deleted by the provider. It made headlines when the doctor was killed while standing in his kitchen. They had names of the abortion doctors and when one was "taken care of" a line was drawn through their name -in essence a "hit list."
With the climate of violance -particularly in the schools- in my opinion lists such as this should not be allowed.
On whatever side on any issue, people with the right intentions have websites such as this one in question, there are the fanatics who take things too far and kill (or whatever else that is extremist).
Then again I can see this as censorship. What if the shoe was on the other foot?
posted on March 29, 2001 12:32:49 PM new
I think everyone would be singing a different tune if the situation was reversed. I do have to say that it is a bad, bad idea to let them continue to publish private information. We must not infringe on someone's rights, should we? Some whacko is going to shoot up and abortion clinic over this, you watch and see.
I shudder about the people who don't shudder at all.
posted on March 29, 2001 12:59:28 PM new
Recent Abortion-Related Violence
By The Associated Press
Some cases of violence involving abortion providers:
Oct. 23, 1998 — A sniper kills Dr. Barnett Slepian in Amherst, N.Y., by firing a shot through the physician's window. Suspect James Kopp arrested in France in March 2001.
Jan. 29, 1998 — A bomb explodes at Birmingham, Ala., abortion clinic. An off-duty police officer is killed and a nurse critically injured in the first fatal bombing of a U.S. abortion clinic. Suspect Eric Rudolph at large.
Nov. 11, 1997 — Dr. Jack Fainman shot in the shoulder at his Winnipeg, Manitoba, home. Bullet came through a window, hitting Fainman within inches of his heart.
Oct. 28, 1997 — Doctor in Perinton, N.Y., cut by debris from bullet shot into his home through a sliding glass door. Doctor's name not released.
Jan. 16, 1997 — Two bomb blasts an hour apart at Atlanta building containing abortion clinic. Seven people injured. Rudolph also charged the explosions.
Nov. 10, 1995 — Dr. Hugh Short, a gynecologist, shot in the elbow by a bullet fired through a window of his home in Ancaster, Ontario, near Hamilton.
Dec. 30, 1994 — John Salvi opens fire with rifle inside two Boston-area abortion clinics, killing two receptionists and wounding five other people. Sentenced to life without parole, he kills himself in prison in 1996.
Nov. 8, 1994 — Dr. Garson Romalis, who performs abortions in Vancouver, Canada, shot in the leg while eating breakfast at home.
July 29, 1994 — Dr. John Bayard Britton and volunteer escort, James Barrett, slain outside Pensacola, Fla., abortion clinic. Barrett's wife, June, wounded. Paul Hill, 40, a former minister and anti-abortion activist, convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
Aug. 19, 1993 — Dr. George Tiller shot in the arms as he drives out of parking lot at his Wichita, Kan., clinic. Rachelle ``Shelley'' Shannon convicted and sentenced to 11 years in prison.
March 10, 1993 — Dr. David Gunn shot to death outside Pensacola, Fla., clinic, becoming the first U.S. doctor killed during an anti-abortion demonstration. Michael Griffin convicted and serving a life sentence.
posted on March 29, 2001 02:15:53 PM new
To post the names and addresses, pictures, etc in a website is utterly disgusting.
In the UK, individuals have the right to privacy, and I would think the doctors would have grounds for a lawsuit against the publishers of such a site. People have the right to go about their normal lives without fear of such unwarranted exposure.
To publicise the URL of this website is reprehensible.
That's what this thread is about. Planned Parenthood sued and lost their million dollar suit against the publisher of this website because they felt they were endangering the lives of the abortion doctors by posting their private info.
Then Planned Parenthood appealed their case to the 9th circuit, and that is the case I posted. The court ruled this is a free speech issue.
posted on March 29, 2001 03:09:59 PM new
So, it apppears is is now legitimate for someone to post up on the internet details of anyone's personal details?
Where is the right to privacy? The right to quiet pursuit of a family life?
And so it is perfectly ok to provide details of how to make home-made nail bombs, because it is only "information" and not inciting anyone to actually make them? Perhaps even as a link off of a "hatred" website?
That would be a nice test case too...
Perhaps the judges in this case won't mind their private details being published either.
And people wonder why many in the rest of the world wonder about the sanity of America.
posted on March 29, 2001 03:18:56 PM new
Oh, I know! I know!
Such a website will be allowed to stand until a doctor is killed, and the murderer is found to have obtained the information that enabled and encouraged him to commit murder came from the website, creating a direct link between the violence and the website.
THEN, presumably the publishers will be sued as complicit in the murder, and the site will be withdrawn (as before).
posted on March 29, 2001 05:08:52 PM new
Dont you find it ironic? Kill a doctor because he kills a baby. Kill kill kill. Thats the answer nowadays. Dont like teach? Kill him. Dont like your boss? Kill her. Dont want a doctor to kill a baby, because it JUST ISNT RIGHT. Ok. Kill him. Uh huh.
[ edited by mivona on Mar 29, 2001 02:35 PM ]