The Nuremberg Files and the First Amendment Value of Threats
SSRN Electronic Journal
2000
- 1Citations
- 3,560Usage
- 3Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
In February 1999, a federal jury in Oregon awarded Planned Parenthood and several other plaintiffs a civil judgment of $107 million against individuals and groups that published two anti-abortion posters and provided information for an anti-abortion website known as The Nuremberg Files. The posters and website included the usual range of anti-abortion expression: immoderate statements opposing the procedure; pictures of bloody fetuses allegedly produced by abortions; references to the satanic impulses of abortion providers; and grandiose statements about the need to prepare for eventual Nuremberg-style trials of all those who provide abortion services or otherwise participate in what the defendants consider the equivalent of mass murder. By now much of this is standard fare in the acrimonious debate over abortion rights. The posters and the Nuremberg Files website went beyond the incendiary rhetoric that characterizes typical anti-abortion militancy, however, by listing the names of individuals who provide support for abortion services-including doctors, clinic workers, police officials, politicians, and judges. Additional personal information was included for some of the individuals, such as their home addresses and telephone numbers. Most notoriously, the operators of the website drew a line through the names of abortion providers who were murdered because of their professional activities. The Oregon jury concluded that the combination of ominous rhetoric and specific identification of individuals constituted a threat to the named individuals, in violation of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE).
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know