Abortion Web site taken off Internet

By STEVE DANA
Collegian Staff Writer

Last week, a federal judge upheld a decision requiring the creators of "The Nuremberg Files" World Wide Web site to pay about $107 million in damages to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and to doctors who said the site put their lives in danger.

The pro-life Web site lists information, such as names, addresses and license plate numbers, of abortion providers. The listed names of those who have been killed are crossed out; those who have been harmed are shaded in gray; and those who are still working are simply listed.

"I think (the doctors) lives are in danger because they are on a . . . hit list," Abigail Woodroffe (junior-biobehavioral health) said.

Although MindSpring, the site's original Internet service provider, removed the Web page because it violated the company's policy, the site found a new provider where it was operational until last Thursday. Karin Spaink, who posts Web sites banned in other countries, copied the site in the Netherlands, but she removed the site last weekend.

Some argue the site, regardless of content, is protected by free speech. But if the page is seen as a direct threat to doctors' lives, it is not a valid form of legal expression.

Joanne Tosti-Vasey, treasurer of the Pennsylvania chapter of the National Organization for Women, said the site is a terrorist act and is not protected by the First Amendment.

"Do we allow people to cry fire in a theatre? Do we allow people to make death threats?" she said. "No, we don't."

To some, however, the link between the site and violent actions is not direct enough to shut it down. Jeannie Yuhaniak (junior-letters, arts and sciences) said the Web page might be cause for concern, but alone it is not enough to justify censoring it.

"I think the site should be allowed, but I don't think it would be wrong to monitor the list," Yuhaniak said. "If anyone on the list in injured, the creators should be partly responsible."

Shad Keene (sophomore-meteorology) said the potential danger and harm the site may cause is enough reason to take it down.

"I don't believe it should be there," Keene said. "This site isn't doing any good. It is immoral and promotes violence."

The site's owner, Neal Horsley, told The New York Times he created the Web site as a means to gain evidence against abortion doctors in the event abortion becomes illegal.

Despite Horsley's intentions, the violent undertones of the site and the listing of personal information about working doctors cause some to believe the intention of the page is to promote murder. Brad Smith (senior-general science) said the site could lead to violence, whatever the intended purpose or justification.

"I don't see how you can justify killing people," Smith said. "It's the ultimate in hypocrisy to start killing people to prevent the killing of others."