One of the greatest attractions of the internet is that it provides a platform for anyone, big or small, articulate or inarticulate, to state their views free from censorship by government, corporations or institutions. It is a freedom that should not lightly be diluted and, should be defended to the hilt: nearly all of the time.
But no one should pretend that the web is an ethics-free zone in which normal moral judgments can be suspended. The fact that it is difficult to draw the line between what is acceptable and what isn't, doesn't mean that there isn't a line to be drawn. The decision of a federal appeals court in San Francisco upholding the right of anti-abortion groups to publish what many people believe is a "hit list of doctors" performing abortions comes into this grey area.
Of course, the court is right to start from the first amendment to the constitution guaranteeing free speech, but that doesn't mean you can say anything about anyone without reference to the consequences.
In this case three of the seven doctors murdered in the past 10 years have been mentioned on the "hit list" and there have been a further 17 attempted murders. Many doctors terminating unwanted pregnancies are forced to wear disguises and bullet proof vests against an intimidating background that has led to a sharp drop in medical students studying the subject - with all that that entails for a revival of backstreet abortionists in the future.
Anti-abortionist have every right to their views and every right to promulgate them as much as they like on the web and elsewhere. But they have no right - and especially not in the guise of being "pro-life" - to publish a list that could lead to the death of a fellow human being carrying out an operation that is supported by the majority of public opinion.
Once again - as in the constitution's right to bear arms - there is too much emphasis on "freedom to" and not enough on "freedom from".
Related story
30.03.2001: US judges rule in favour of abortion 'hit list'
