In another "Smooth move, Exlax" kind of way, President Bush signed into law the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act this past Monday. The AETPA, formerly known as the 1992 Animal Enterprise Protection Act, basically gives federal authorities the power to prosecute animal rights activists that protest as terrorists. That's right, you read it, if you protest a lab, a puppy farm, a puppy store, etc, in the name of animal rights, and the business loses any profit as a result of the protest, you're a terrorist.
I have two huge problems with this. Number one, and these are in no particular order, isn't this a country founded on our rights to free speech and protest? Didn't some super old guys once write that, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government"? As an American, if I believe I see an injustice, don't I have the right to publicly protest in a peaceful, demonstrative manner as a right afforded to me by the First Amendment to the Constitution? Apparently I was wrong.
My second problem with this is something I'm not sure who's to blame for. It may be my own fault. How did this ever get passed into law without more media coverage? This is a big deal. More and more of our rights are being chipped away at with every new "Homeland Security" act. I get Google alerts, I watch the local news station out of Memphis and I get the CNN RSS feed. How did I miss this? Where was all the uproar? Was I the only one who didn't get the memo? It just appears to me that more and more often these days this administration is slipping laws like this by us without anyone noticing. When I said before that it may be my own fault, I meant it. As an American, it's my duty to pay attention to what our government is doing. Obviously I haven't been watching closely enough. Like the parent who knows that their child stole a cookie from the cookie jar, but didn't catch them in the act, I'm left to complain after the fact, but the sad truth is, it's my own fault for not watching the child closely enough.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
You might want to read that UPI article a bit more closely. It looks like this law focuses on violent and harassing protest, not normal free speech. So you can march around with a sign, but you can't beat someone to death with a baseball bat.
The fact is that ecoterrorism is a genuine problem. I wrote an article about it a while back, but some of these ecoterrorists actually kill people and do enormous harm in other ways as well.
I need to look at the actual text of the act, but I bet that this is gettin blown way out of proportion.
Dave
2 - Mad Cow
I can see where you're coming from, but if you read the actual bill itself it includes "Inclusion of Economic Disruption" and has specific provisions for the dollar amount of said economic disruption. That to me sounds like any protest for animal rights where they owner lost any dollar amount.
3 - dee
When do we start revolution #2??
4 - Mad Cow
Good question dee. I was kind of thinking that we began a little bit of a revolution at the last election.
5 - Joe
You want to start a revolution to save the puppies? How sweet.
6 - Dave Nalle
Mad Cow, if that dollar cost is limited to such things as property destruction and doesn't include anything vague like loss of reputation or bad publicity then it would be absolutely justifiable to use it to determine if a crime has been committed.
Dave
7 - JR
Dave Nalle: The fact is that ecoterrorism is a genuine problem. I wrote an article about it a while back, but some of these ecoterrorists actually kill people and do enormous harm in other ways as well.
"Ecoterrorism" is all but non-existent. The vast majority of unlawful (as the law is traditionally defined) acts involve destruction of property; that's not ecoterrorism, it's ecovandalism. Still a crime, but it's not keeping people away from crowded places or stocking up on duct-tape, much less sending our troops halfway around the globe.
Your attempt to make these clowns out as terrorists is merely a symptom of your irrational worship of money. This kind of criminal grade-inflation will devalue real terrorism and ultimately degrade the government's ability to fight it, just as the criminalization of drug users has overwhelmed our justice system.
8 - Clavos
Published in The NewStandard, November 15, 2006:
As reported by The NewStandard just hours before the House took its voice vote on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), the bill will classify civil disobedience actions â€" such as blockades, property destruction, trespassing, and the freeing of captive animals â€" as terrorism.
The AETA amends current law enabling the government to prosecute activists for intentionally damaging property used by "animal enterprises" â€" businesses that use or sell animals. The AETA expands those provisions to enhance penalties against activists who "interfere" with animal enterprises by destroying property or engaging in behavior that appears "threatening." It even includes perceive (sic) threats to companies that work with animal enterprises and takes into account resulting profit losses...
...The AETA does make specific provisions to safeguard activity protected under the First Amendment, but critics have raised concerns it could have the effect of discouraging even lawful protests.
Doesn't sound like anyone's rights are being unduly curtailed to me.
9 - RedTard
Weren't destruction of property and trespassing already crimes? I disapprove of special laws protecting this group or that group. If a law regarding protesters and their damage needs to be created, apply it to every industry not just those involving animals. Equal protection.
10 - Dave Nalle
What we're really talking about here is an attempt to take actions which are already crimes and add additional jail time to the punishment for them by classifying them as terroristic. Kind of similar to hate crimes legislation, but without the flaw those laws have of basically punishing thoughts and intent.
Dave
11 - Mad Cow
Hey, I'm not saying that vadalism, harming other humans or damaging property shouldn't be against the law. My issue is with this subsection:
"the term `economic damage' means the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, or the loss of profits"
Protests outside stores selling puppy mill puppies do usually result in loss of profits. AETA goes on to say that this does not include "disruption that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise", but does this mean that a protestor that jaywalks in order to protest is therefore a terrorist if the result of that jaywalking means economic loss for the store? The whole point of a protest outside such a store is to educate the public and cause economic loss.
12 - PracticalGal
According to what I've read, the bill very specifically exempts anything currently protected by the first amendment.
The bill was introduced by Diane Feinstein, a fact most people don't appear aware of. She proposed it largely in response to difficulties prosecuting "inciting to violence" under current law. In particular, activists were posting personal contact information about workers and employees that resulted in death threats, harassment of kids, assaults on employees and contractors, and an attempted firebombing of the wrong house. (You can look up details in the Chronicle of Higher Education - search on UCLA.)
The people who post contact information on people working with animals, and contractors - including their home address, their kids names, where their kids go to school, their unlisted phone numbers - and encourage folks to hurt them - those people previously couldn't be prosecuted. Now they can.
I don't think inciting people to firebomb old ladies is protected speech.
I don't think inciting people to harass little kids at their own homes and tell them their daddy is an animal murderer is protected speech.
I work at a university, and these people are scary scary scary. You try to tell me they're not terrorists - when you're afraid for your co-workers, for their families and for their personal safety, how is that not terrorism? The way activists have acted is shameful and does not help their cause. They seem to hate people more than they love animals.
The law was needed before soemone got killed. At UCLA, if the bomb had gone off, someone would have been. I dont want the safety of my co-workers depending on the ineptitude of the bombers.
13 - Arch Conservative
Ok let me just say that I don't think animals should be unecessarily harmed.
That being said I have to acknowledge the fact that most of the PETA and other people that go so far as protesting are complete idiots. Not too mention hypocrites. I wonder if any PETA members have ever had to take a prescription medicine. If they have I wonder what they'd say if they found out it was tested on an animal so that they could live healthier.
Also I find the liberal leftist view towards protest completely hypocritical in that they believe in protest when it's in favor of their cause but when it's a pro-life protest they call the cops and file a lawsuit.
14 - Mohjho
Actually Arch, the treatment of animals or the intelligence of PETA members is not what this article is about.
Ecoterrorists actually have been around when they spiked trees and burn property in order to intimidate individuals and corporations into giving up or spending too much money on security. These people get what they deserve.
Mad Cow is simply questioning the wording of this piece of legislation. Is it necessary, will it be effective, and will it be abused? If I legally protest Petco, will I be on some government terrorist list? If I organize a boycott of some animal test center, will I be liable for lost profits? Good questions.
15 - Franco
Mad Cow says..
I can see where you're coming from, but if you read the actual bill itself it includes "Inclusion of Economic Disruption" and has specific provisions for the dollar amount of said economic disruption. That to me sounds like any protest for animal rights where they owner lost any dollar amount.
Mad Cow,
Yes I see it the same way, and I like what I see. Profit is not a dirty word. In fact its keeps socitiy working and in order. Profit gets kicked around a lot by many, those who can not make one, and like nonprofit corporations (which most activist work for) and yet the tax free donations they recive and workers get paid with all comes for profit the was originally made by companies. We live in times of such distortions in hypocrisy.
If profit is made legally under the law in animal research then doing anything to hurt or destroy what was legally obtained by that company or individual is infringing on their civil rights and property rights. Why you don’t see that as the biggest threst of all to individual rights I find most disturbing. If you don’t like the law allowing certain animal researh then work within the system to change it. Until then others you do not agree with have rights under the law too.
Mad Cow says..
don't I have the right to publicly protest in a peaceful, demonstrative manner as a right afforded to me by the First Amendment to the Constitution?
Mad Cow,
Yes you do still have this right and it has not been taken away from you by AETA.
Animal or environmental activists who do anything threatening to other persons, or their places, or their things opperatating legally under the law, then these activists belong in jail. I am for any law that helps gets them there and keeps them there.
As for where this will lead to in government infringement on citizens’ First Amendment rights is not in any measure a new threat to our civil rights for law-abiding protesters. As for more radical personality activist types that tend to push over the line of the law in efforts to do harm to other legal citizens, even these more radical types rights are still very well protected. There are so many legal avenues that activists can find to support and defended them on such a matter that it actually boggles the mind. But if the government proves you intentionally plotted and or participated in bring harm to persons, places, or things (which includes profits if obtain legally under the law) then these persons should suffer under the law. Remember that it was their chose.
For all of us that may not agree with certain animal treatment currently legal under the law today, and want a change, you can work for this end in a legal way. In fact today there are so many legal means available for just this kind of thing that did not exist a decade ago.
So any activist creating any tactics and or actions that are threatening to persons, places or things, (which is what terrorist do) are really being committed by people with personality disorders that delude themselves into thinking they are above the law by taking someone elses rights away for righteousness sake. If truth were known some activists do it just for the shear excitement and satisfaction of venting their own lives frustrations by destroying something and trying to cover the evil deed, consciencely or unconsiencely, with a so called good cause. These people belong in jail.
Mad Cow admists..
Protests outside stores selling puppy mill puppies do usually result in loss of profits.
The whole point of a protest outside such a store is to educate the public and cause economic loss.
His intention is clear and therefor guilty under AETA.
16 - Mad Cow
Franco,
Yes, I have protested outside establishments that purchased puppies from inhumane breeders. No, I don't believe that makes me a terrorist or an individual with a personality disorder.
And thank you for getting it, Mohjho.
17 - LongLiveRock
Mad Cow, you're only a terrorist if you threatened to blow up a science lab and harrass all who work there and their familes!
18 - Al Barger
I'm with Mad Cow- this legislation is just like Hitler. I can't believe Bushitler can get away with violating our rights like this. If I want to spike some trees in order to injure or kill loggers, that's my First Amendment right! Or if I want to burn down a car dealership selling gas-guzzlling SUVs, that's my symbolic free speech protest- just like the Founding Fathers dreamed of.
Down with Bushitler!!!!
19 - Mad Cow
Al,
Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Glad you didn't exaggerate at all!
No, I'm not talking about any type of protest that harms any other human being physically, or damages property. I'm talking, peaceful, lawful protests.
20 - cal
im an animal activist. but im only a kid (dont use that against me.) Iv never heard of this law before, but now I heard more than i want to hear. This is outrageous! i mean bush has done some pretty bad things concerning animals, but this, this is just totally wrong! you should be able to pass on your ideas, even if they might change someone affected's ecenomical status! thank you for bringing this issue to light for me
cowie