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

9/12/2014 Violence Against Women Act Turns 20 - Saturday will be the 20th Anniversary of the groundbreaking federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Passed in 1994, VAWA was the first piece of federal legislation to specifically address domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes and to provide federal funding to improve local response to violence against women, including training and resources for law enforcement and judges. President Barack Obama on Tuesday issued a proclamation commemorating the VAWA anniversary. . . .
 
9/12/2014 Indiana Woman Charged With Feticide For Premature Delivery - An Indiana woman has been charged with feticide after she delivered prematurely and sought hospital treatment. Purvi Patel, 33, sought help at an emergency room for vaginal bleeding where it was discovered that she had delivered prematurely at home. . . .
 
9/11/2014 Missouri Legislators Pass 72-Hour Abortion Waiting Period Law - Missouri legislators voted late last night to triple the state's current 24-hour waiting period to 72 hours, with no exceptions for rape or incest. Governor Jay Nixon previously vetoed the bill in July, calling it "extreme and disrespectful." Missouri's House voted 117-44 to override the veto, and then the Senate used a procedural move to stop a Democratic filibuster of the bill and vote 23-7 to complete the veto override Wednesday. "The only purpose of a 72-hour waiting period is to attempt to punish, shame, and demean women who have arrived at a personal decision that politicians happen to disagree with," said the president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights in a statement. . . .