Little-Enforced Law Opens Window for Suits Against Extremist Groups (Washington Indy)

Prosecutions Under Anti-Abortion Extremism Law Fell Under Bush
By Daphne Eviatar 6/3/09 6:00 AM

The threats started in 1995. It was the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and the American Coalition of Life Activists decided to create a poster for their annual meeting listing the names and address of a group of doctors who performed abortions. They called them “the Deadly Dozen,” and declared each guilty of “crimes against humanity.” They offered $5,000 for information leading to their arrest, conviction, or revocation of their medical licenses. ACLA members distributed the poster at the group’s events and published it in an affiliated magazine ...

Eventually, some of the doctors, represented by Planned Parenthood, sued ACLA, twelve activists and an affiliated organization, claiming that their actions violated the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE act, among other laws. At trial, a jury found that the statements were “true threats” and therefore not protected by the First Amendment. The doctors won $107 million in damages and an injunction barring the anti-abortion activists from distributing similar information in the future ...

As Rachel Maddow revealed in chilling detail in her MSNBC news show on Monday night, groups such as Rescue America, Prayer and Action News, Army of God and Operation Rescue Founder Randall Terry all appeared to be celebrating Tiller’s murder on Monday. And while extremists who promote violence against abortion providers could be prosecuted under state and federal law — and particularly under the federal FACE Act — the federal government in recent years has hardly prosecuted any such cases.

According to statistics provided by the Department of Justice, the Bush administration brought only about two criminal prosecutions per year in the entire country under the FACE Act , and never more than four in any single year. The Clinton administration, in contrast, prosecuted 17 defendants for violations of the FACE Act in 1997 alone, and an average of about 10 per year since the law was enacted in 1994. Those cases included one against a woman in 1996 who yelled through a bullhorn to a doctor, “Robert, remember Dr. Gunn. This could happen to you …”, referring to Dr. David Gunn, the first abortion doctor ever murdered, in 1993. In another case, a man who parked a Ryder truck outside a clinic shortly after the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City, where a Ryder truck had been used to carry explosives, was found to have threatened force. Stalking, arson and bomb threats are also illegal ...

http://washingtonindependent.com/45408/prosecutions-of-anti-abortion-extremism-fell-under-bush

I don't care how. There's always Gitmo, where actual evidence is not required.

Sure don't hear people harping at Obama about that now like we did last week, do we?

Bush left Obama all kinds of toys to deal with these far right extremists.

:kick:

These activist groups are killers themselves and doctors who stand behind womens' rights to choose are heroes in my eyes.

Why are these groups not considered terrorist groups???

k & r btw

However, it's not a panacea for use against extremist groups in general. The key words in the FACE Act is: "http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/facestat.php">by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction". In particular, "threat of force" is the most pertinent with regard to individuals or groups which may be construed as promoting such violence.

As a test case I searched videos of O'Reilly speaking about Tiller to see if anything he said was actionable under this law. The closest O'Reilly came, that I have found, is when he said: "http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001803/">I wouldn't want to be Tiller, if there is a judgment day". However, this is a religious reference to a supposed future act of God, which lacks a suggestion of human action. O'Reilly's words are generally highly inflammatory in a political sense but lacks the words or the symbolism, as in the ryder truck, to implicate endorsing violent action. Perhaps someone here can find an O'Reilly quote, or other individual or group, that has said something more actionable under the law. O'Reilly knows full well that this shooting cost his political position dearly, and doesn't want executions of abortion doctors for this reason alone. I doubt he would be as adverse to these executions if he didn't have the bully puppet and aspirations to change the law in his favor politically.

Strengthening the law to make O'Reilly's rhetoric, that I have witnessed, actionable is problematic. Doing so would open up many of the opinions expressed here as actionable hate speech also. As much as I would like to publicly bitch smack O'Reilly for politically inflammatory characterizations, which avoids the issues altogether, it must be allowed if we are to maintain the right to tell him how full of crap he is and label him a hate monger. O'Reilly honestly, in his own view, does not feel any more responsible for Scott Roeder's actions than we do for Ted Kozinski, Bill Ayers, et al. If and when the line is crossed I'll be the first to yell prosecution.