Fair or Not: Activists Silenced by AETA

I think a lot of animal rights activists go to far, but this law is absolutely insane. As far as I'm aware these people were not engaged in violent activity...

Activists Silenced by Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act File Lawsuit

Animal rights activists filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday to challenge the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), a law they say has violated their First Amendment rights and allows the government to label peaceful protesters as "terrorists."

Meeropol said AETA's language is so broad that Occupy Wall Street protesters could be labeled terrorists if they caused a bank with a cafeteria that serves meat to lose property or business during an action.

Critics claim AETA has implications for dissenters beyond the animal rights movement. Attorneys with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), who are representing the plaintiffs, told reporters that the Bush-era law is too broad and could be interpreted as designating certain acts of civil disobedience as terrorist activity.

What do you guys think?


R.C.
My tagline below...

As much as I dislike animal rights activists, the government has no right to make their own laws, but unfortunately a lot of people are too pussified to do anything about it.

Especially with the prospect of indefinite detention or worse

Remember my tagline...

I think that there was some overreaching by law enforcement officials in prosecuting the protestors mentioned in the article, and that the judge rightfully dismissed the case. If you actually read the law, it is fairly explicit that peaceful protest is not prohibited, even if it does cause economic damage. However, if you sabotage a facility or try to intimidate people with threat of physical harm, they can come after you, and rightfully so. I base this on the following language:

(e) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed--

``(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution;

``(2) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference; or

``(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this action, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies.''.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-10...109publ374.htm


My real concern:

Are these types of crimes not already covered under state and federal law? Do we really need special protection for "animal enterprises?" I mean, the main reason I'm against hate crime laws is because assault is assault is assault, and murder is murder is murder, no matter why you do it. Why should it be any different for businesses?

If current state and federal law are insufficient to protect "animal enterprises," it suggests to me the generally applicable law needs some tweaking, rather than the creation of a specially protected group of businesses.

It gets even worse now...

FBI Says Activists Who Investigate Factory Farms Can Be Prosecuted As Terrorists

The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has kept files on activists who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms and recommended prosecuting them as terrorists, according to a new document uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act.

This new information comes as the Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as unconstitutional because its vague wording has had a chilling effect on political activism. This document adds to the evidence demonstrating that the AETA goes far beyond property destruction, as its supporters claim.

The 2003 FBI file details the work of several animal rights activists who used undercover investigation to document repeated animal welfare violations. The FBI special agent who authored the report said they “illegally entered buildings owned by [redacted] Farm… and videotaped conditions of animals.”

The animal activists caused “economic loss” to businesses, the FBI says. And they also openly rescued several animals from the abusive conditions. This was not done covertly in the style of underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front — it was an act of non-violent civil disobedience and, as the FBI agent notes, the activists distributed press releases and conducted media interviews taking responsibility for their actions.

Based on these acts — trespassing in order to photograph and videotape abuses on factory farms — the agent concludes there “is a reasonable indication” that the activists “have violated the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, 18 USC Section 43 (a).”

This is absolutely insane. They're effectively saying investigating corruption is an act of terrorism!


R.C.
Remember to read my signature...

This is so blatantly obvious what is going on. Or at least a possible outcome.

"Hey let's make a law that allows us to detain anyone we consider a terrorist, then using other laws we will broaden the spectrum of what a terrorist is. Then if we make enough of these terrorist definition laws we can arrest who ever we want for however long we want only because they disagree with us! Isn't it great I got the idea from this Orwell guy."- Anonymous person in power.

@DarkWarrior

Of course, the definition of terrorism is stretched out until it covers everything. Already dissent, protest, and civil disobedience are considered domestic terrorism; now investigating potentially corrupt corporations for animal cruelty is considered terrorism.

Good. Now I can eat that penguin in the lake.

@Fate

That is a joke right?