nuremberg files

Nuremberg Files mirror

Go straight to the mirror page

My original motivation, February 22, 1999
While I strongly hold that every woman should have an abortion if she needs one, I do not think that other opinions about the subject should be outlawed or fined, no matter how harshly they are put. Yet this is precisely what happened in the case of the Nuremberg Files. Dutch version.
Additional motivation, February 25, 1999
Why I believe that suing anybody over their opinion is wrong. Freedom of speech cannot protect only some opinions while banning others. Robbing the Nuremberg Files-people of their legal means of protest will make them go underground and make them less visible, not less dangerous. However, the sharply divided Court of Appeals ordered a lower-court judge to reduce the $108.5 million in punitive damages a Portland, Oregonn, jury had previously awarded to four doctors who sued the abortion foes.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, May 16 2002
In what amounted to a close shave (six judges in favour, five against), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the March 28 2001 decision by the previous court. Per this appeal ruling, the makers of the Nuremberg Files can be held liable because their works amounted to illegal threats, not free speech.
9th circuit ruling, March 28 2001
The ruling that precipitated the closure of the Nuremberg Files was appealed. In March 2001, the 9th circuit finaly came with a new ruling: whatever the NF stated and what the ACLA had published, was deemed to be well within the limits of freedom of speech. I predict that the full Nuremberg Files will soon be available in the US again. Swell. Soon, I'll be able to use their pages as a demonstration of their narrowmindedness, and I won't need to rely on hearsay.
Legal analysis of the Nuremberg Files court cases, January 2001.
By Rob Vara, student of law. Vara has made an elaborate study of all four Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists rulings in as far as they pertain to the Nuremberg Files, and has compared these rulings to previous (Disctrict Courts, Second Circuit, Sixth Circuit, Ninth District and the Supreme Court) rulings where the First Amendment was pitted against threats of violence. A very interesting read.
Legal analysis of the Nuremberg Files, February 15, 1999
By Jonathan Wallace, co-author of Sex, Laws and Cyberspace, (SLAC) a book that deals with censorship and legal issues on the net. "Not everything which we find shockingly immoral is, or should be, illegal. In the case of a decision assigning liability for pure speech---for that is all a web page is---more consideration should have been given to the goals of the first amendment, and the precedents already established in free speech law."
What used to be the mirror page, February 29, 1999
After a week, I took the names list down, and replaced it with a preliminary essay that explains why a list of names is and should be considered to be an integral part of freedom of speech.
Nuremberg Files Mirror Guestbook
Read what others had to say, or put an entry in the Nuremberg Files Mirror Guestbook yourself. Because the guestbook is quite large, I have cut it up into smaller files.

Selected list of newspaper articles about the NF Files and the NF mirror:

  1. Antiabortion Web Site Tests Free Speech, Time Magazine, Jan 7 1999
  2. Guilty Verdict In Abortion Trial; Move Could Redefine Free Speech, Channel 6000, Feb 2 1999
  3. Decision with a blunt object, The Oregonian, Feb 3 1999
  4. Controversial anti-abortion site resurrected, CNet, Feb 22 1999
  5. Anti-Abortion Site Is Back Online, New York Times, Feb 22 1999
  6. Nuremberg Files anti-abortion site back online - in Holland, Salon, Feb 23 1999
  7. Die Nuremberg Files sind wieder im Netz, Heise / Telepolis, Feb 23 1999
  8. Web site gets unlikely ally, Register Guard, Feb 23 1999
  9. Web site against abortion returns, The Oregonian, Feb 24 1999
  10. Nuremberg Files Returns to Internet, Conservative News Service, Feb 24 1999
  11. US Nuremberg Files go dark again, CNET, Feb 25 1999
  12. New injunction against 'Nuremberg' site, ZDnet, Feb 26 1999
  13. Judge slams anti-abortion site, ABC News, Feb 26 1999
  14. Constitutional Rights and Ethical Choices: The Nuremberg Files,, Feb 1999
  15. Why we must defend this repugnant site,, Feb 1999
  16. Internet freedom: controversy,, Feb 1999
  17. Nuremberg Web Page Redoux, Cyberlaw webforum, Feb 1999
  18. Why We Must Defend Vile Scum, LM Magazine, March 1999
  19. Free Speech Abuse, John Fitzpatrick, Director of the Kent Law Clinic
  20. He's ba-a-a-ck! The return of the Nuremberg Files, Life Advocate, March/April 1999
  21. The Conviction of Tim Dreste, St Louis Riverfront Times, May 11 1999
  22. A Conflict of Rights: Speech v. Access in the Abortion Debate, Cyberspace Law Web Projects, May 1999
  23. Anti-abortion site owner sues MindSpring, CNET, June 10 1999
  24. Oregon Live Special Report: abortion trials
  25. Stanford University: The Nuremberg Project, Stanford CS201 final project. Contains an historical overview of the case, an elaborate legal analysis, a discussion of extremists presence on the net and of ISP censorship. Excellent documentation.
  26. Professor Steven G. Gey: The Nuremberg Files and the first amendment value of threats. Gey reviews the Planned Parenthood vs ACLA trials, and discusses the way that law was applied or should have been applied. Excellent argumentation.
  27. Oral Arguments in PP vs ACLA in the 9th District Court. The PP vs ACLU case is on appeal. Here is a transcript of the oral arguments. Fascinating read.
  28. Appeals court says threats against abortion doctors protected, CNN, March 28 2001
  29. "Nuremberg Files" Decision Overturned, Slashdot, March 28 2001
  30. Court rejects anti-abortion site verdict, Cnet, March 28 2001
  31. Anti-Abortion Site Wins Appeal, Wired, March 28 2001
  32. Court overrules judgment against abortion foes, Boston Globe, March 29 2001