Dr. David Gunn was only 47 when he was murdered for his profession [1]. As a licensed OB/GYN that performed abortions, Gunn was not considered a popular man amongst anti-abortion groups like the Army of God. Therefore, when leaving his clinic on March 11, 1993, Gunn was shot three times by Army of God member, Michael F. Griffin [2]. This brutal murder was the first killing of several abortionists in the early 90s. This and the following acts led to the creation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE).
The Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act is a piece of legislation passed in 1994 used to protect an individual’s right to chose. “FACE makes it illegal to intentionally use force, the threat of force, or physical obstruction to injure, intimidate, interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with individuals obtaining or providing reproductive health care services [3].”
Between 1994 and 2000, FACE helped reduce the violence directed toward clinics, doctors, and patients by 20% [3]. However, this problem is far from over. Pro-Life activists are incredibly determined to ensure that all people know their stance, and in doing so can overstep the line between speech and conduct.
Later last week a US District Judge declared that an anti-abortionist must remove his webpage that condoned the execution of a former abortion doctor. These postings, dated since 2005, forced this clinician to leave the practice because she feared for her life [4]. Seventy-two year old John Dunkle is the web manager of the site that published a post that “Featured the [abortion] provider's name, photo and address, stat[ing] that ‘While it does not sound good to say go shoot her between the eyes, it sounds even worse to say let her alone [5].’"
Dunkle is not even sure that he agrees with the printed statements, and he continues to reiterate that he is not the writer of these messages, only the publisher. “’If they tell me not to print it, I won't print it,’ [Dunkle] said [5].”
U.S. Attorney, John Meehan, sought this injunction in August saying that “’This type of intimidation and scare tactic, regardless of one's beliefs or religious convictions, simply cannot be condoned. Using a public forum, such as the Internet, to incite and instruct people to kill is tantamount to a form of domestic terrorism [5].’"
The injunction also forbids Dunkle from printing any future posts “Containing names, addresses or photographs of health-clinic staff members [5].”
Dunkle’s website took the form of a blog. I’m sure Dunkle believed that he, just like the students in JOUR 199, was exercising his right to the First Amendment. His postings were the written opinions of others and the protection of minority viewpoints is a main function of the First Amendment. However, at what point can Dunkle’s posts be considered hate speech or fighting words?
The First Amendment Center has an excellent site dedicated to the understanding of Hate Speech on the Internet. From the get-go it acknowledges that the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on online hate speech and that only previous decisions on non-virtual hate speech set the standards for future cases [6].
The concern regarding hate speech legislation is that it can either be overbroad or under-inclusive and often infringe on First Amendment rights.
The most closely related ruling to the situation involving Dunkle is Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. vs. American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA) [6]. This 2001 case was ruled on by the 9th Circuit Court.
The ACLA ran a website called the “Nuremberg Files.” This page published the personal information of abortion doctors [6]. After these doctors had been threatened, abused, wounded, or killed by various Pro-Life activists, their names would be crossed out or changed to a grey color. While this site did not expressly threaten the doctors, it did, perhaps, encourage individuals of a certain mindset to bring action upon those they did not agree with.
The court acknowledged this idea as an implied threat, but declared that this form of danger does not constitute as an imminent threat and thereby cannot be restricted without violating the First Amendment.
However, I do not agree with the court. To me, this list of doctors is a hit list. How can they allow for this information to be printed? This is not meant to be a directory for those seeking health services. It is meant to be a published list for Pro-Life activists to act upon. This information does not automatically mean that those listed are in danger, but what sort of redeeming social qualities might this list possess? I can see no reason to allow for its publication. The source marked [7] is a link to the current “Nuremberg Files.” Search around and try not to lose your breakfast. I have yet to decide if I am Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, but this website makes me sick to my stomach.
On that note, have a great Turkey Break!
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gunn_%28doctor%29
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_F._Griffin
[3] http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/face_act.html
[4] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/%5Cnews.aspx?id=19312
[5] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18977
[6] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/internet/topic.aspx?topic=internet_hate_speech
1 comment:
I actually was watching an episode of the Law and Order dealing with a very similar case. A man was posting the names and pictures of undercover cops for the obvious purpose of unmasking them and putting them in danger. The court ruled that they could not punish the man for the deaths that had occurred from that type of evidence alone. They stated that the act of posting pictures and words on a website is not enough to convict someone of being associated with a murder. Being that it is TV they also ruled that the site come down which I believe sadly cannot happen in a real court room. I completely agree that a website with the nature such as the one stated in your blog has no real value at all other then that of criminal. But for the court to begin to shut down websites that seem to have no value is a slippery slope. Unfortunately the power to ban can be taken advantage of, as we have seen in governments around the world. As first amendment advocates note the end result of the first amendment losing strength would be much worse then anything else. There are also ways that these people listed can be protected, and although it is an inconvenience, the protection of the first amendment is very important.
Post a Comment