Anti-abortion posters ruled "true threat"

An appeals court says protestors crossed the line between free speech and threatening physicians. But the Supreme Court is likely to be the final arbiter.

By Tanya Albert, AMNews staff. June 10, 2002.

Physicians who anti-abortion groups featured on "wanted-style" posters and Web site hit lists got some protection from a recent federal appeals court ruling.

The relief comes after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in California, narrowly decided that posters that resemble wanted posters from the Wild West and list a physician's address and photograph were not protected political speech.

In a 5-4 decision, the majority said when it looked at the context that the posters were created in -- some physicians featured on posters were later killed -- there was a "true threat" to other doctors whose photos appeared on similar posters. The court said the Web site, known as the Nuremberg Files, was free speech. But it said a scorecard on the Web site that draws a line through doctors who have been killed and notes which doctors were injured is not protected speech and instead was a "true threat."

The decision is good for physicians because it overturns a March 2001 decision by a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit and reinstates a jury verdict in favor of the physicians and clinics. The 9th Circuit, however, did send part of the case back to a lower court, asking a federal judge there to look at reducing the $107 million jury award.

"The AMA is gratified by the recent decision ... to refuse to grant Web sites designed to incite violence against physicians and other health care professionals protected status under the First Amendment," said AMA Secretary-Treasurer Donald J. Palmisano, MD, in a statement. The Association filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. "Freedom of speech does not include the right to incite violence and authorize harm against others." [...]