Internet messages reach many times the number of people, in a tiny fraction of the time, than similar materials in print or other formats. The instant addition of graphics and sound can dramatically intensify the impact of any message and can surely make an ominous posting seem far more frightening or intrusive than it would be in print or if transmitted by fax or phone. Although the Court was not dealing with issues of civil liability, but rather with government regulation of Internet content, everything the justices said in the Communications Decency Act case points toward parity in the treatment and protection of the Internet as the newest medium of communication. Thus to the extent that the judgment against those who posted hateful messages on the Nuremberg web site reflects an assumption that the medium somehow makes the message more vulnerable than it would be in other forms, that assumption seems highly questionable. Such issues are not entirely new to the Ninth Circuit, where the Nuremberg appeal will soon be filed.
Predictions are always difficult, and no less in a new field of law.
Finally, the court might insist that the case be retried under a more rigorous standard, one which would demand proof both of clear intent to threaten and targeting of individuals. Such a disposition would reflect the more urgent free speech concerns, while keeping open some exceedingly difficult issues for another day.