The organization was known for its extreme tactics, including the creation of "wanted-style" posters targeting abortion providers, which led to significant legal battles over the limits of free speech and the definition of threats.
Initially, a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the verdict, ruling that the ACLA's actions were protected speech under the First Amendment since they did not directly threaten harm to the plaintiffs and were not communicated privately.
However, the en banc 9th Circuit reversed this decision, holding that the ACLA could be held liable for damages because the website's content was intended as a deliberate threat, anticipating that someone might act on it, which is not protected by the First Amendment.
The majority of the en banc Ninth Circuit concluded that the posters and website were designed to intimidate, rather than persuade, abortion providers, which constituted a "true threat" under the FACE Act.
Legal scholars and commentators have debated whether the court's decision appropriately balanced First Amendment protections with the need to prevent intimidation and violence against specific individuals.