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

10/20/2014 North Carolina Board of Elections Eliminates On-Campus Voting Sites Across the State - North Carolina will begin state-wide early voting on Thursday, and unlike the 2012 presidential election, many students across the state will have no polling place on-campus, making it more difficult for students to exercise their right to vote. The North Carolina State Board of Elections recently eliminated the only on-campus voting location for the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, a campus with more than 20,000 students. . . .
 
10/20/2014 Jay Leno Receives Mark Twain Prize, Salutes Mavis and Her Work for Women's Rights - Former long-time host of "The Tonight Show" Jay Leno saluted his wife, Mavis, for her work on behalf of women's rights around the world when he was awarded the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor this weekend at The Kennedy Center in Washington, DC. The Mark Twain prize is awarded for comedic achievement, and the event, where Leno performed a monologue and paid tribute to the many comedians he has worked with throughout his career, brought together supporters of the The John F. . . .
 
10/20/2014 Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Slams Supreme Court for Upholding Voter Suppression in Texas - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a blistering dissent after a ruling by the US Supreme Court this weekend threatened to disqualify more than half a million Texas voters from early voting. In an unsigned order Saturday, a majority of the Supreme Court sided with a Texas law requiring voters to produce specific forms of photo identification in order to cast a ballot in the 2014 election. . . .