nuremberg files

In an interesting change of direction, a federal appeals court declared that the Nuremberg Files (a hateful anti-abortion site that i’m not willing to link to) is not covered by free speech, as it amounts to illegal threats. I’m intrigued by how limits on free speech are determined and what they mean long term, so i still can’t decide if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Certainly, i don’t want that site out there; but i also don’t want my speech limited. What are healthy boundaries?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 thoughts on “nuremberg files

  1. ryan

    It depends on whether they were really making illegal threats.. free speach only goes so far.. if you threaten another person’s life or safety, i don’t believe that should ever be considered free speach.. I shouldn’t be able to go around posting on the web ‘I’m going to kill ___ ___’ or ‘I’m going to make ___ ___ suffer pain for ____’ (with serious intentions) and have that be considered free speech… With free speach, you should be able to state your desires, your wishes, your thoughts, your dreams, etc.. as long as they don’t infringe on another person’s personal safety.. Of course, the abortion cases let the government chose how we define a ‘person’, but that’s not the point.. and, i guess in this case, it was also a decision as to whether the threates were real.. but, in the end, i don’t believe threats of bodily harm should ever be protected under free speach.

  2. Paul

    I am intimately familiar with this entire case. There were no threats of any kind on either the posters (which were produced by the defendants) or the website (which was NOT produced by any defendants). The court said there were neither explicit nor ambiguous threatening language in any of them. The plaintiffs’ attorney said the same thing. Yet the judge decided to allow a jury to decide whether the non-threats were transformed into threats by the violent cats of people not associated with those being sued. So much for free speech.

Comments are closed.