A federal jury ruled today that creators of “The Nuremberg Files” Web site violated the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act (FACE) and federal racketeering statutes and awarded the plaintiffs with damages in the tens of millions.
The suit, originally filed in 1995, charged that Web site creators violated the FACE Act by inciting violence against abortion doctors and their patients. Passed in 1994, FACE made it a felony offense to blockade or commit violence against women’s health care clinics and workers. This trial marked the first time that FACE had been used to try threats of violence, rather than actual physical confrontations.
The Nuremberg Files Web site, previously at http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity/ publishes the names, addresses, social security numbers, and vehicle license plate numbers of abortion providers and their supporters. Also available on the site are the names and birth dates of the spouses and children of targeted individuals, pictures and videotapes of targeted individuals and their homes, cars, workplaces, and friends.
Nuremberg’s virtual “hit list” of targeted individuals includes abortion providers, security officers who protect abortion clinics, pro-choice activists, clinic owners, clinic workers, pro-choice judges and politicians. On this list, the murdered victims of anti-abortion violence have been crossed out with a line even before their murders were made public. The names of the wounded are shaded in gray.
Many of the abortion doctors named on the Nuremberg Files hit list testified in court, telling jurors about their experiences. They testified that they lived in constant fear for themselves and their families and were forced to hire bodyguards and wear bulletproof vests to protect themselves.
Defendants stated that they would not reverse or discontinue their tactics, and claimed that they would not suffer monetary damage because they had transferred their assets to other parties and were “judgment-proof.”
*This article was edited on 6/8/2020 to reflect that the website under discussion is no longer online at the URL referenced in this story
