There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
| We're so glad you came|
|Reach around the subject|
| Terminate processing activity|
|In the back alley|
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.
Was this an unconstitutional threat?
The courts certainly thought so.
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.
- Stone, Geoffrey R. (1999) The First Amendment, ISBN 9780735529298