Taking intimidation tactics against doctors who do abortions too far

The case against the anti-abortion activists behind the "Nuremberg Files" site should not end with a recent appeals court ruling.

Editorial. April 23/30, 2001.

Rarely do news events converge so neatly. On March 28, a federal appeals panel threw out the $107 million verdict against a group of anti-abortion activist individuals and organizations, in a case that is best known for highlighting a Web site accused of promoting terror attacks against abortion providers. The very next day, a suspect was arrested in the 1998 killing of one such doctor, Barnett Slepian, MD.

In an editorial at the time Dr. Slepian was shot, we largely dismissed the Web site (called the "Nuremberg Files" in a grotesque attempt to confer legitimacy on itself) as simply a ghoulish, high-tech sideshow to the issue of abortion-related violence. But a closer look at the site, the 1999 trial that led to the jury award, and the recent appeals court ruling raises serious issues of accountability for those who so directly contribute to a climate of fear and intimidation.

The Nuremberg Files site claimed only to collect evidence on abortion providers for an imagined future crimes-against-humanity trial. But by posting personal information -- home addresses, license plate numbers, photographs -- the site made those individuals a far easier mark for someone intent on doing them harm. The site had lines through the names of those killed, suggestive of a hit list. [...]