Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists ("The Nuremberg Files Case"), 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002)


Facts of the Case
"In January 1996... ACLA unveiled a series of dossiers it had compiled on doctors, clinic employees, politicians, judges and other abortion rights supporters. ACLA dubbed these the "Nuremberg Files," and announced that it had collected the pictures, addresses and other information in the files so that Nuremberg-like war crimes trials could be conducted in "perfectly legal courts once the tide of this nation's opinion turns against the wanton slaughter of God's children." ACLA sent hard copies of the files to Neal Horsley, an anti-abortion activist, who posted the information on a website. The website listed the names of doctors and others who provide or support abortion and called on visitors to supply additional names. The website marked the names of those already victimized by anti-abortion terrorists, striking through the names of those who had been murdered and graying out the names of the wounded. Although ACLA's name originally appeared on the website, Horsley removed it after the initiation of this lawsuit....

"Along with two Portland-based health centers, the doctors sued ACLA, twelve activists and an affiliated organization, alleging that their threatening statements violated state and federal law, including the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (FACE), 18 U.S.C. § 248."

Question
Is the Nuremberg files website a true threat and thereby open to liability in damages and enjoinment?

Conclusion
Yes. "If ACLA merely endorsed or encouraged the violent actions of others, its speech would be protected. However, while advvocating violence is protected, threatening a person with violence is not. [Although the] posters contain no language that is [literally] a threat, whether a particular statement may properly be considered a threat is governed by an objective standard... [It] is not necessary that the defendant intend to, or be able to carry out his threat; the only intent requirement for a true threat is that the defendant intentionally or knowingly communicate the [threat] with the intent to intimidate."

* viewer discretion is advised.