Choosing Freedom of Speech

On Feb. 2, a jury in Oregon ruled against a group of abortion opponents on the grounds that an anti-abortion Web site called "The Nuremberg Files," along with two anti-abortion posters, constituted "a true threat by one or more of the defendants to do bodily harm, assault or kill any of the plaintiffs." The defendants were fined $ 107 million.

The now infamous Nuremberg site consisted of a list of 200 abortionists along with their addresses and information about their families. The site also provided some facts about abortion and displayed graphic pictures of aborted babies. The listed abortionists were labeled "baby butchers" and those who had been killed were crossed out on the list. The posters in question were "wanted" posters listing the names of 12 leading abortionists and asking for "information leading to the arrest, conviction and revocation of license to practice medicine" of those abortionists. Neither the Web site nor the posters contained any statements explicitly advocating or condoning violence.

As much as a great number of people, abortion opponents included, disliked the website and the posters, did they actually warrant criminal prosecution? The court and even the plaintiffs admitted that "no statement contained in the text...is expressly threatening." So why were the defendants found guilty? The court believed that threats could be inferred from their actions because of the backdrop of anti-abortion violence in the country. The list, they argued, could easily be construed as a "hit list," providing information for anyone who wants to kill an abortionist. Perhaps it does, but so do the Boston yellow pages. Information about abortionists is by no means hidden or confidential.

The court's decision ought to be repugnant to anyone--pro-life or pro-choice--who believes in the validity of the First Amendment. "If we believe in free speech at all, we must limit responsibility to those who commit the acts of violence rather than lay blame on the makers of a Web site that appears to advocate them. Otherwise, any unpopular speech will be subject to oppression," asserts Suzanna Sherry, professor of civil rights and civil liberties law at the University of Minnesota, who is also avidly pro-choice.

Yet what is even more frightening about this breach of liberty is that none of the defendants owned or operated the Web site. The owner, Neal Horsley, was not among the defendants but attests to the fact the web-site was his creation and that he was solely responsible for its design and maintenance.

In fact, while the lawsuit was filed three years ago, the Web site is only one-and-a-half years old. Therefore the site, toward which most media attention has been drawn, was not a central part of the initial case.

The defendants, then, were convicted mostly on the basis of two posters which called for nothing more than information leading to the revocation of the abortionists' medical licenses through the legal process. Undoubtedly the posters are offensive to a large number of people, yet if offensiveness were a reason for prosecution, then freedom of speech would soon be no more than a nostalgic memory.

What has happened with these pro-life defendants is that they were convicted by association; as a member of an unpopular class of fervent pro-lifers, they are considered an automatic threat to society. Their conviction was not based on their own personal actions, but on their association with others who hold the similar views and have committed acts of violence as a result of those views. This type of ruling seems much more congruous with the actions of an Orwellian-type totalitarian state than with the proper proceedings of the American judicial system.

A defendant ought to be judged on the basis of his personal guilt or innocence, not on the basis of actions committed by others who share the same ideology. The Ku Klux Klan is free to say what it likes, pornography will not be banned, neo-Nazi hate groups will not be silenced; yet when it comes to pro-life activists, a limit on free speech seems to be uniquely justified. Such a double standard is not only intolerant and undemocratic but also hypocritical. Supporters of choice are ever-fervent in their rally for liberty--just as long as they don't have to apply it to their opposition as well. Melissa R. Moschella '02 is a government and philosophy concentrator in Grays Hall.