Anti-abortion sites vs. free speech

Free speech watchdogs have been saying for years that attempting to censor Net material is like trying to plug a hole in a dam with bubble gum.

That point has been underscored by the recent events surrounding the controversial Nuremberg Files anti-abortion site. Even after a federal court called the site "threatening" and its Web hosts dumped it, the Net still is crawling with lists detailing the whereabouts of doctors who provide abortions.

The Nuremberg Files case also shows that in spite of the Net's global nature, community standards are being carried out online. When the ISPs removed the site, they reacted similarly to TV networks that pull advertisements or programs due to public outcry.

CNET TV talks to Neal Horsley, Nuremberg Files creator 1.7M

The Nuremberg Files was shut down by two service providers after a civil jury in Portland, Oregon, ordered the American Coalition of Life Activists and Advocates for Life Ministries to pay more than $107 million in damages for distributing "wanted" posters with doctors' names and redistributing the data on the site.

The site listed contact information for more than 200 people around the country calling for the "baby butchers" to be "brought to justice." U.S. District Judge Robert Jones also issued a permanent injunction prohibiting a group of abortion foes from continuing such activity.

Planned Parenthood convinced the federal court that such sites are no different than "hit lists" to incite violence against doctors. Still, the Advocates for Life Ministries' Alternate Pro-life Links site--which contains a dead link to the Nuremberg Files--still is up and running as a clearinghouse for anti-abortion sites that list private details about abortion providers.

"I think all of us who use the Internet need to understand that if the Web is being used to make threats against particular individuals and is putting the lives of particular people in danger, we need to be responsible for that as users of the Net," said David Fidanque, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon.

"If we're not responsible and don't understand that connection then there will be more attempts to censor the Internet," he added. "Those attempts eventually will be successful unless we can police ourselves."

The federal court never ordered ISPs to shut down the Nuremberg Files, yet two separate hosts did just that after apparent public pressure. Even a free speech advocate from the Netherlands, who was mirroring the site, buckled and removed the list when she was inundated with negative feedback from people who didn't "get" her point.

"Protest and complaints are part of the marketplace and should be encouraged, as we've seen with hate sites and spam," said Ari Schwartz, a policy analyst at the Center for Democracy and Technology.

But others warn that the concept of ISPs policing content poses dangers of its own.

"It's double-edged sword," said David Sobel, general counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

"On the one hand it's good to take government out of the process of regulating online content," he said. "But on the other hand it means that a person who has material taken down doesn't have any recourse when an ISP, reacting to public sentiment, decides to remove something because it's controversial."

However, the Nuremberg Files hosts felt they had a right to remove content that was simply bad for business.

The Web: takes a look at how the debate about anti-abortion site the Nuremberg Files affects free speech online. Sci-Fi Channel: March 13, 7 a.m. PT March 14, 7 a.m. PT USA Networks: March 14, 7 a.m. PT

Rodney Sizemore, director of operations for OneNet Communications, the T-1 provider for former Nuremberg Files host Plebeian System, wrote in an email message to Plebeian's founder Chris Wagner: "My question would be: 'Why is this one customer of yours so important that you'd risk the rest of your business?'

"It is only a matter of time until we get pressure from above regarding you--they have done it many times in the past with spammers and pornographers that were downstream from us," he added. " None of those businesses are around today. These people will go after each link of the chain until one of the links break."

Plebeian, an upstart Web hosting company in Cincinnati, cut off the Nuremberg Files after OneNet threatened to discontinue Plebeian's service unless it halted access to the controversial site's home: "www.christiangallery.com." OneNet provides Web services to more than 10,000 clients, including Toyota and Procter & Gamble.

In a recent interview, Sizemore also confirmed that OneNet and some of its corporate clients were the targets of a "phone campaign" calling for the Nuremberg Files to be yanked.

Before Plebian hosted the site, MindSpring Enterprises shut it down following the federal jury's decision, as first reported by CNET News.com.

A portion of the Communications Decency Act that was never legally challenged states that an online service can't be held liable for content posted by a third party, but it also encourages providers to report any suspected illegal activity.

And now more than ever, ISPs do pull down illegal material when alerted. Moreover, portals and access providers alike have "terms of service" agreements for forums or Web hosting that prohibit a wide range of activity from profanity and rudeness to trafficking illegal material such as pirated software or child pornography.

The defendants in the Planned Parenthood case maintain that sites such as the Nuremberg Files were created in case doctors can eventually be put on trial for "crimes against humanity." They vowed to appeal the ruling.

CNET TV talks to Dr. Elizabeth Piracello Newhall 1.7M

Although the Nuremberg Files' creator, Neal Horsley, was not a defendant in the case, his site was highlighted as a prime example of anti-abortion rhetoric that allegedly incites violence against doctors and clinic workers. He said he posted his project on the Web to gain a wider audience.

"I've been looking for an audience for the things that I write, and because my point of view doesn't not reflect any existing majority consensus I've always been swimming uphill as a communicator," Horsley said. "The World Wide Web obviously opened a door to an audience that would be there potentially as a source of my work."

But now its seems his site is a pariah to ISPs.

The Alternate Pro-life Links site could be right behind the Nuremberg Files if pressure mounts. Alternate Pro-life Links' host, SpritOne Information, based in Portland, said it had not received any complaints about the site.

Civil liberties advocates say that although it is better when the public--not regulators--set rules of conduct for the Net, there could be a terrible domino effect if major service providers act too hastily to eliminate controversial, but legal, content.

"It goes back to the CDA's provision that empowers ISPs to take actions regarding content without any concern for liability growing out of the decisions," noted EPIC's Sobel. "The one hope is that there will be a niche for alternative ISPs that don't respond to those pressures."

CNET Television's Stephanie Berger contributed to this report.