I think libel/slander things cover the media to some degree, but there are so many legal things surrounding abortion provision/coverage/etc, I'm not sure anyone has put the time/funding into pursuing this. Unfortunately, a great deal of it is covered under free speech and the right to peaceably assemble.
libel/slander doesn't cover political speech, or arguably "true" speech/opinion. There was nothing protecting Dr. Tiller.
regarding first amendment issues... see the cases where websites targeting abortion doctors were ordered taken down. I think there is a strong argument that such protections, narrowly tailored, are merited.
Re: This may cover it ...fiona64June 4 2009, 23:23:23 UTC
Theoretically, it does; the problem is that it is not well enforced. In fact, if you contact your local FBI and tell them you are reporting Jill Stanek under FACE (http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/06/partial_birth_a_2.html#more) that it is intended to do just that. They consider acts like Stanek's to be inciting violence against physicians.
If the laws that exist about threatening or dangerous speech and activities were enforced when it came to abortion providers - FACE and slander/libel, but also assault (which in civil law means making someone reasonably fear bodily harm; not like criminal law) stalking, harassment, assault, trespassing, proper granting and execution of protection orders - abortion doctors would be safe. Annoyed frequently, and I too would like to see that stopped, but safe. In fact, if law enforcement had fulfilled an obligation to follow up on a call they received last weekend, Roeder might have been in a holding cell on Sunday morning. The problem isn't the statutory framework, it's that law enforcement are negligent in their protection of abortion providers. Normally I'd defend them as under-funded and -staffed, but I'm very much not in the mood to make excuses for them. Aside from which, from a policy perspective, I see anti-choicers getting their victim complexes on and tying up enforcement of the law in endless appeals which would
( ... )
not really, IMO - there's no law that you can't put an abortion provider's name, address etc up, and call them a murderer. Like Jill Stanek just did.
The problem isn't the statutory framework, it's that law enforcement are negligent in their protection of abortion providers.
I see that as a hole in the statutory framework.
For instance, what if, if Stanek's post were illegal and the government refused to prosecute... the doctor could bring a civil suit against Stanek, and not only collect a fine per instance and treble damages, but also attorney's fees and costs? (I'm taking from the Civil False Claims Act here).
That would penalize lifers who broke the law. It wouldn't get every crazy on the net, but the high-profile ones would be significantly deterred. ISPs would cut of violating users. Etc.
I've been trying to figure out where to go with this, moreso since I ended up seeing dr-tiller.org or whatever the hell it was last night. Bearing in mind that there are few things I hold in higher esteem than the 1st amendment
( ... )
Incitement can be made illegal - e.g., shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
Does the first amendment protect lying and coercion?
Slander may be outlawed consistant with the first amendment. But normally, proving slander in this kind of case would be difficult, and the rewards minimal. I think we need a new, more stringent cause of action.
I think we do as well. I'm struggling on trying to find existing laws and framework in order to advance that. I'm wondering if we can build off ideas such as slander.
Comments 13
Reply
regarding first amendment issues... see the cases where websites targeting abortion doctors were ordered taken down. I think there is a strong argument that such protections, narrowly tailored, are merited.
Reply
There were, of course, laws against murder that were there for Dr. Tiller, but obviously they didn't do much for him. =/
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
not really, IMO - there's no law that you can't put an abortion provider's name, address etc up, and call them a murderer. Like Jill Stanek just did.
The problem isn't the statutory framework, it's that law enforcement are negligent in their protection of abortion providers.
I see that as a hole in the statutory framework.
For instance, what if, if Stanek's post were illegal and the government refused to prosecute... the doctor could bring a civil suit against Stanek, and not only collect a fine per instance and treble damages, but also attorney's fees and costs? (I'm taking from the Civil False Claims Act here).
That would penalize lifers who broke the law. It wouldn't get every crazy on the net, but the high-profile ones would be significantly deterred. ISPs would cut of violating users. Etc.
Reply
Reply
Does the first amendment protect lying and coercion?
Slander may be outlawed consistant with the first amendment. But normally, proving slander in this kind of case would be difficult, and the rewards minimal. I think we need a new, more stringent cause of action.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment