Ann Coulter
People say there are a lot of kooks on the Internet, but I don't know. The anti-abortion Web site Nuremberg Files is an excellent concept (http://lancasterlife.com/NurembergFiles). It provides a list of abortionists in anticipation of "the day when these people will be charged in PERFECTLY LEGAL COURTS once the tide of this nation's opinion turns against the wanton slaughter of God's children (as it surely will)."

This is such a great idea, I've been lost in a reverie drafting my own Nuremberg list, and abortion is just the beginning. This week I'm concentrating on the Nuremberg files for big tax-and-spenders.

That the Web site envisions trials clearly excludes the possibility of summary execution. Still, its creators were sued and ordered to pay $109 million in damages to Planned Parenthood and four abortionists who claimed they felt threatened by the pro-lifers' free speech.

The $109 million fine on free speech was eventually overturned on appeal. In a groundbreaking ruling, the appeals court found that -- not just go-go dancers -- but "words are protected by the First Amendment."

The court was apparently unaware of the abortion exception to the Flynt Amendment. As Justice Antonin Scalia has explained it, abortion operates as an "ad hoc nullification machine" in which "no legal rule or doctrine is safe" when faced with an abortion regulation.

But the appeals court was driving blind. It cited only the Constitution -- flagrantly ignoring the pocket parts to the First Amendment added by the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and The New York Times.

Needless to say, the Times was indignant. It's one thing to publish classified Pentagon documents or graphic photos of sodomic acts involving bullwhips. It's something else entirely when a pro-life Christian opens his trap.

The Times editorialized that the decision in the free speech case should motivate the Bush administration to "crack down" on the anti-abortion movement. In their darkest fantasies, this is what liberals claim McCarthyism was. Pro-lifers can't have their speech squelched, so the Times at least wants them investigated.

In addition to its heavy-breathing editorial, the Times ran an earnest column by one of the abortionists who had sued the pro-life Web site. "It's too dangerous for me to be in front of a window," the abortionist woefully claimed.