Activism or Terrorism

On Monday, February 3, 2014, oral arguments will be heard in Blum v Holder (hearing is at 9:30 at John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse in Boston, MA) This case is the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) legal challenge to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as an infringement on free speech.

Let me give you some background on AETA :

In 1992, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) was signed into effect. AEPA essentially made it an "Offense" if anyone or group:

"(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, for the purpose of causing physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise; and

"(2) intentionally causes physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing, damaging, or causing the loss of, any property (including animals or records) used by the animal enterprise, and thereby causes economic damage exceeding $10,000 to that enterprise, or conspires to do so;"

The penalty was to be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

AEPA also extended coverage for "Aggravated Offense":

"(1) SERIOUS BODILY INJURY.-- Whoever in the course of a violation of subsection (a) causes serious bodily injury to another individual shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

"(2) DEATH.--Whoever in the course of a violation of subsection (a) causes the death of an individual shall be fined under this title and and imprisoned for life or for any term of years.

"(c) RESTITUTION.— An order of restitution under section 3663 of this title with respect to a violation of this section may also include restitution—"(1) for the reasonable cost of repeating any experimentation that was interrupted or invalidated as a result of the offense; and

"(2) the loss of food production or farm income reasonably attributable to the offense."

Definition of “animal enterprise” with AEPA is : 

"a commercial or academic enterprise that uses animals for food or fiber production, agriculture, research, or testing; a zoo, aquarium, circus, rodeo, or lawful competitive animal event; or any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences”;

Under the definition section, it is also stated that ” the term "physical disruption" does not include "any lawful disruption that results from lawful public, governmental, or animal enterprise employee reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;"

According to CCR, this Act was “pushed through” by industries who exploited animals, as well as the assertion that this Act “swept up constitutionally-protected free speech activities" - even though, as stated above, it DID NOT include lawful public disruption (lawful public disruption would seem to me as "peaceful protests" free speech with opinions, articles, etc.)

Before we “fast forward to 2006” when the AETA was introduced (as CCR would like us to) let’s “visit” a few occurrences of the animal rights activists “disruptions” that violate their free speech:

1996: an anonymous posting on a blog lists names and addresses of mink and fox farms and research facilities . It offered the first comprehensive list of mink, fox, and lynx farms to date, revealing for the first time the exact physical location of fur farms across North America. Prior to its release, there had been five fur farm liberations. In the 2.5 years that followed, there were nearly 50. (This was called Final Nail #1) The website also gives explicit instructions on things such as how to pick a target, where to park, what equipment to bring, how to dismantle fences and how to destroy breeding records

1997: someone cut a 20-foot section of fence and released about 3,000 mink at the former Turbak Mink Ranch near Kranzburg. The mink — valued at $90,000 — got loose early in the morning. Some were recaptured; many died before they could be corralled.

A group of animal rights terrorists anonymously produced a hit list for the myriad animal terrorism cells performing raids; they’ve encouraged their followers to raid, criminally destroying property, and potentially robbing producers of their livelihoods.

From 2001 to February 2004, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), recruited sympathizers online to vandalize property at the homes of employees of the pharmaceutical company, Huntingdon Life Sciences of East Millstone, near Princeton, and of the other companies The group posted, as part of the campaign, what it called the ”top 20 terror tactics” to be used against companies and individuals, including invading offices, chaining gates shut, writing graffiti on cars and houses, flooding houses with garden hoses, smashing windows and sending defective e-mail messages in attempts to disrupt computers. They also often posted on its Web site the names and ages of employees’ spouses and children and the names of the children’s schools and various athletic fields where they were scheduled to play. (Known as the “SHAC 7, they were arrested at their homes on Long Island and in New Jersey, Seattle and Pinole, Calif., near San Francisco - and CCR, who is group who filed the legal challenge to AETA, is group who represented the SHAC 7) According to CCR, the SHAC 7 is only responsible for their website (which they assert is covered under Free Speech) and not what “others” do in regards to “protests”, even though their president (Kevin Kjonnas) posted pictures of protests that showed acts of vandalism

2012 - UCLA researchers have received numerous death threats, as well as a researcher having her car set on fire in her driveway and the year before having her home flooded when someone broke a window and put a garden house inside; another had to endure having his windows and door banged on in middle of the night by these so-called “activists”

In June 2013, after being compiled by animal activists acting anonymously, “The Final Nail #4″ was released on the internet “Just in time for Fur Raiding season” as one web site posting the document mused - giving Specific details on fur farm layout (gathered from on-site investigations)

August 2013 activists broke into a Riverside aviary and released the owners pheasants, leading to some of the pheasants’ deaths.

The above crime in Riverside followed an attempted firebombing of a police car in Vancouver, computer hacking of a New York business, a mink-farm burglary in Idaho, vandalism at a San Diego fur store and threats from a terror group to “destroy” farms across Utah, all in 2013 alone.

10/17/2013 In August, a group called Iowans for Animal Liberation poured red paint over the Iowa butter cow, a life-size cow carved in butter that is a highlight of the state fair, to symbolize the blood animals shed on the way to being eaten, worn and otherwise exploited

Now, we can skip forward to 2006 when AETA was passed.. This expanded on the AEPA changing it from Animal Enterprise Protection Act to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.   According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, the definition of terrorism is (1) the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal; (2) the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion,    I believe the above cited cases fall under the category of terrorism.  Yet, according to CCR, the 5 Blum plaintiffs in the appeal “are chilled from continuing their lawful and important advocacy work based on the broad reach of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.”

From Sarah Jane Blum’s own posting (http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/17809-the-animal-enterprise-terrorism-act-rebrands-constitutionally-protected-behavior-as-terrorism) : ”Last March, Judge Joseph L. Tauro dismissed the case because, he said, the plaintiffs “have not alleged any specific, actual harm suffered.” But I have been deeply harmed. The AETA explicitly punishes causing an “animal enterprise” to lose profits, and I have spent years living in fear that the more persuasively I tell the truth about the animal suffering that underpins so much of our daily lives, the more likely I am to get thrown in jail.”

Yes, AETA adds the clause “intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation" as well as "or conspires or attempts to do so;" But it also still contains the clause that it doesn’t include "lawful disruption":

“(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;”

So, if Ms. Blum and her “co-plaintiff’s” are only “persuasively” telling their perceived truths about the animal enterprise, they should have nothing to fear.    Unless,of course, their “persuasively telling” includes vandalism, threats of harm, trespassing, bodily injury etc.

You decide - Activism or Terrorism?