Anti-abortion terrorism took a punch to the gut today. With a 6-5 vote to reversing its previous decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the "Nuremberg Files," an anti-abortion terrorist site, could be held liable for what amounted to threats of murder [Wired]. The site had listed names, addresses, and other personal information about abortion providers and pro-choice advocates, and crossed out the names of listees who were murdered, listing them as "casualties" of war. The reversal of ruling follows a petition to the court with amicus briefs from a huge coalition of reproductive rights groups, the American Medical Association, and forty-three members of Congress, to hold an en banc review of the decision [GT].

Although it reversed its previous decision to throw out the case, the Court also ordered a lower court ot reduce its previous $108,500,000 award of punitive damages, to lessen the ratio between the punitive damages and the $12,000,000 award of compensatory damages.

Previously, the Circuit Court of Appeals had made a specious argument on First Amendment grounds, holding that the lower court’s ruling infringed the rights to free speech of anti-choice terrorists. The site, however, was an blindingly obvious example of clear and present danger if there ever was one.

Imagine that, say, Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa declaring that, in defense of Muslim power, hawkish Right-wing legislators should be murdered. And after the campaign of terror had already slaughtered a few of them, a militant Islamist group compiled an extensive list with legislators’ personal information, home addresses, photos of their car, and even information about their childrens’ daily schedules. Then they put it online, surrounding it with background images of the blood of dead Muslims and links to photographs of dead Iraqi babies. Then they referred to a Holy War against the persecutors of Islam. Every time another legislator was shot and killed, his name was listed as crossed-out, as a casualty of jihad. Every time one was wounded, it was dimmed, as a non-fatal casualty. The site would continue to do this even after there was credible information indicating that its list had been used in some of the murders. Would this be — rightly — seen as a terrorist site? Would there be 6-5 rulings on whether or not it constituted an exercise of the right to free speech? I think it would rightly be seen as part of a coordinated campaign of terror, inciting and enabling violence against its selected targets.

Anti-abortion individuals and groups have every legal right to post their views online. They have every legal right to go around posting images of bloody fetuses. They have every right to single out particular doctors for (non-libelous) commentary, even the most lunatic ranting and raving. But they have no right to make what, in the context of a coordinated campaign of anti-abortion terror, amounts to an overt death threat. I take this shit very personally. My mother has worked in reproductive health in clinics that provided abortions, including in one of the towns in north Florida which was later served by Dr. David Gunn until he was murdered in Pensacola. I have friends who work for abortion providers today. I am and intend to continue being a politically visible pro-choice advocate. I thank the Court for their ruling to hold anti-abortion terrorists responsible for their actions.

The case is also interesting in that it upholds the RICO charges against the defendents. This will be an issue in the upcoming Supreme Court hearings on NOW v. Scheidler, in which racketeering law was used against Operation Rescue, Joe Scheidler, and other perpetrators of organized anti-abortion violence. The Supreme Court held in 1993 that RICO law was applicable in the case; the jury found them guilty; the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court has declined to hear a First Amendment challenge against the ruling, but will hear arguments on some technical points pertaining to the RICO charges.

Despite this ruling, I don’t expect that the Nuremberg Files will be leaving the news any time soon. Especially with such a razor-thin ruling, I think we can expect to see appeals headed straight toward the Supreme Court on this case. Given the razor-thin division of the Supreme Court on the issue of abortion, I think I can safely predict that we will continue to live in interesting times with regard to this issue for a while yet.

For further reading:

• GT 4/23/2001 Repro Rights Coalition Challenges Anti-Abortion Terrorist Website
• GT 3/29/2001 Ruling Against Anti-Abortion Terrorist Site Overturned
• GT 3/11/2001 Anti-Abortion Terrorist Convicted for Online Bounty
• GT 3/10/2001 Happy National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers!