Washington ? Like any social/political crusade, the anti-abortion movement has spawned its extremist elements, some of whom are extreme indeed. Most dangerous among these, of course, are the very few who have assassinated “abortion providers.” Second in line are those rancorous souls who welcome such behavior. Describing themselves as Christians, they publicize the names and addresses of physicians on Web sites and, when a doctor is killed, celebrate the murder by crossing out his or her name.

These various Web sites make for astonishing reading. There is very little evidence of Christian doctrine in any of them, just an abiding hatred of people who perform and undergo abortions, and language of singular, and sometimes startling, violence. These are people who believe that the United States, since Roe v. Wade, has become a charnel house, and that George W. Bush is a mass murderer for defending and extolling American freedom. Disturbing and contemptible, they are; Christian, they ain’t.

But that’s beside the point. The pertinent question here is: By what right do such people advertise their convictions? The answer is not necessarily clear. A recent ruling by the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, reversing an earlier decision, affirmed punitive damages against one Internet site, called the Nuremberg Files, which publicizes the names and addresses of physicians, celebrates their murder, and exhorts readers to take action against abortion and abortion providers.

An earlier three-judge panel had decided that the Nuremberg Files, while ugly and inflammatory, made no specific threats of physical harm against individuals. But the full 9th Circuit ruled otherwise: Noting that doctors had begun taking defensive measures, including the wearing of bulletproof vests, the court declared that the Nuremberg Files did not fall under the category of protected speech because it “made statements to intimidate the physicians, reasonably foreseeing that physicians would interpret the statements as a serious expression of intent to harm them.” The case is likely to be decided by the Supreme Court.

While the vast majority of Americans regard such Web sites as the Nuremberg Files with contempt, they also believe that people are entitled to say what they believe, no matter how foolish or repugnant or offensive.

The question is where the Constitution draws the line. This dilemma has emerged with the innovation of a handful of anti-abortion Web sites that print and disseminate photographs of women entering and leaving abortion clinics. The law allows people to picket such places, and (within certain parameters) to address customers as they come and go. But the right to demonstrate publicly has been lately expanded to include screaming at patients, taking their photograph, and distributing such pictures on the Internet, sometimes accompanied by addresses and telephone numbers. Is this the exercise of free speech, or an unconstitutional threat to do harm?

There is nothing in the Constitution about any right to privacy, but the law does recognize certain limitations. The activists who create these Web sites would argue that there is no statute against calling themselves journalists and taking pictures in public and publishing them as what they regard as “news.”

You have to have a fairly expansive notion of news to regard the harassment of law-abiding women as journalism, and there can be little question that the aim of these Web sites is not enlightenment but intimidation. Not only do they intrude on the discomfort of individuals which, by itself, is lawful behavior but they expose innocent people to the possibility of harm. If the Web sites in question were just printing pictures taken in public, that would be obnoxious but not necessarily unconstitutional. But because they are publicized in connection with real and explicit threats, and printed with accompanying personal information, a court might reasonably discern a specific danger.

Historically, the law gives speech considerable latitude, and words in and of themselves are harmless. But as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in a famous espionage case, “The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.” Assigning threats of violence to a face, name and address is not what the Constitution regards as free speech.

Philip Terzian is the associate editor of the Providence Journal.