G'day, fellow RationalWikians! Don't forget to visit the Campaign page of the 2016 Board of trustees election in order to make your voice heard. Suggested activities include:

  • Endorsing select candidates (lending a hand to your loyal henchmen and/or glorious overlords!)
  • Anti-endorsing select candidates (character-assassinating your hated opponents!)
  • Providing moar goat (please wipe afterwards)
  • Just asking questions to the candidates

Your participation might help other users better direct their votes. More importantly, it'll show the world that we've yet to go full Citizendium in terms of election hype!

from FuzzyCatPotato (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 00:24, 25 July 2016

Nuremberg Files

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
We're so glad you came


Icon sex.svg
Reacharound the subject
Gay sign.png

The Nuremberg Files was an ultra-conservative website sponsored by the American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA). Without a flicker of embarassment, it attempted to equate the actions of doctors who perform abortions with those of the Nazi war criminals prosecuted at Nuremberg.

Determined that one day these vile, baby-slaughtering "abortionists" should be brought to justice for their "crimes against humanity" (despite ex post facto trials being prohibited by the United States Constitution), the ACLA assembled online dossiers that included doctors' photographs alongside their home and work addresses, all tastefully packaged in the style of "Wanted" posters.

Similar agitation had been previously linked with the murders of women's health physicians by far-right Christian extremists.

[edit] Was this an unconstitutional threat?

The courts certainly thought so.

[edit] Were the courts right?

Context matters. Such information had been recently used to facilitate serious crimes, and could be reasonably expected to do so again.
The website was not a threat in and of itself, as it did not directly condone criminal activity. It was, however, building a database with considerable potential for harm towards those featured therein.
The website was making a public statement, not a private threat. It was placing a burning cross in the town square, as it were, rather than in someone's front yard. The courts have frequently held the former to be protected speech. The lack of explicit incitement and the public nature of the website prohibit its classification as a true threat.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Sources

Abortion articles on RationalWiki
Abortion - Fetus/Fœtus - Gonzales v. Carhart - Nuremberg Files - Pro-life - Pro-choice - Essay:Rhetorical analysis of abortion essays - Roe v. Wade - Schlafly, breast cancer and abortion - The Silent Scream - Barnett Slepian - Essay:Where do you fall in the abortion debate?
Personal tools