Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

February-02-99

Jury: Web Site in Violation of FACE

A federal jury ruled today that creators of "The Nuremberg Files" Web site violated the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act (FACE) and federal racketeering statutes and awarded the plaintiffs with damages in the tens of millions.

The suit, originally filed in 1995, charged that Web site creators violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) by inciting violence against abortion doctors and their patients. Passed in 1994, FACE made it a felony offense to blockade or commit violence against women's health care clinics and workers. This trial marked the first time that FACE had been used to try threats of violence, rather than actual physical confrontations.

The Nuremberg Files Web site, at http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity/ publishes the names, addresses, social security numbers, and vehicle license plate numbers of abortion providers and their supporters. Also available on the site are the names and birth dates of the spouses and children of targeted individuals, pictures and videotapes of targeted individuals and their homes, cars, workplaces, and friends.

Nuremberg's virtual "hit list" of targeted individuals includes abortion providers, security officers who protect abortion clinics, pro-choice activists, clinic owners, clinic workers, pro-choice judges and politicians. On this list, the murdered victims of anti-abortion violence have been crossed out with a line even before their murders were made public. The names of the wounded are shaded in gray.

Many of the abortion doctors named on the Nuremberg Files hit list testified in court, telling jurors about their experiences. They testified that they lived in constant fear for themselves and their families and were forced to hire bodyguards and wear bulletproof vests to protect themselves.

Defendants stated that they would not reverse or discontinue their tactics, and claimed that they would not suffer monetary damage because they had transferred their assets to other parties and were "judgment-proof."

Media Resources: AP - February 2, 1999


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

12/19/2014 Woman on Life Support Revives Ireland Abortion Debate - Debate surrounding Ireland's ban on abortion has come up again following a current case involving a woman who is being kept on life support because she is pregnant. The woman's family wants her to be taken off life support, but doctors refuse because Irish law says they must do what they can to protect the 16-week-old fetus. . . .
 
12/19/2014 DC City Council Unanimously Approves Reproductive Health Anti Discrimination Bill - Wednesday, the Washington, DC City Council unanimously passed a bill that will prohibit employer interference in the reproductive health decisions of their employees. The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014 was first introduced by DC Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large), just ahead of the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of for-profit retail chain Hobby Lobby this summer. . . .
 
12/19/2014 Incremental Gains for Women in Congress - When the 114th Congress is sworn into office on January 3rd, 2015, there will be exactly the same number of women in Senate as the year before, 20, and a record-high number of women in the US House, 84. . . .