Nuremberg Files

This page contains too many unsourced statements and needs to be improved. Nuremberg Files could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed.

We're so glad you came Sexuality

Reach around the subject

Covenant marriage Rochdale sex trafficking gang Gorean Anthony Comstock Swedish Model Report Bisexuality Sex education Sex toys Section 28 Homosexualidad Gay sex Pansexuality v - t - e

Terminate processing activity Abortion

Medically approved

Abortion Pro-life Pro-choice History of abortion

In the back alley

Randall Terry Barnett Slepian History of abortion Great Beethoven fallacy Margaret Sanger Down syndrome Unplanned Abby Johnson v - t - e

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?[edit]

The courts certainly thought so.

Were the courts right?[edit]

Yes

Context matters. Such information had been recently used to facilitate serious crimes, and could be reasonably expected to do so again.

Maybe

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.

No

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.

See also[edit]

• Hate speech
• Abortion and Nazism

External links[edit]

• See the Wikipedia article on ACLA.

Sources[edit]

• Stone, Geoffrey R. (1999) The First Amendment, ISBN 9780735529298