HumanistNetworkNews.org
Nov. 1, 2006
Imagine facing jail for leading a peaceful demonstration, just as Martin Luther King Jr. did 40 years ago. Or imagine facing fines for leading a successful boycott of corporations with offensive policies or that commit offensive actions, just as civil rights activists boycotted buses and lunch counters in the American South, forcing corporations to change their policies for the better.
Now imagine that the imprisonment and imposition of fines on non-violent protest action was justified as necessary to combat a growing threat –- animal rights activism.
Yes, that's right –- in the age of fear over Islamist fundamentalist terrorism, the U.S. government has felt it necessary to combat the fearful prospect of animal rights activism. Last year, the FBI even stated that animal and eco-terrorists were the top domestic terrorist threat.
Bowing to industry pressure, the U.S. Senate passed S.3880, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, by unanimous consent on Sept. 29. The U.S. House of Representatives will consider a companion bill, H.R. 4239, when it reconvenes on Nov. 13.
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) is a revision of the 1992 Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA). AEPA sought to protect animal enterprises from illegal acts such as property damage. This bill expands the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 with harsh penalties and adds protection of "tertiary concerns," those who are indirectly related to animal enterprises. This includes supermarkets, restaurants and even leather-goods stores.
While the bill may appear to simply expand protection for property owners, its overly vague wording provides for the prosecution of any action that can lead to economic damage –- defined as "loss of profits" -- and the labeling of the initiators of such action as "terrorists," right alongside Osama bin Laden.
AETA spells out penalties for "an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction of an animal enterprise or a business having a connection to, or relationship with, an animal enterprise, that may result in loss of profits but does not result in bodily injury...." In other words, any act that causes a loss of profits to an animal-use industry can be treated as terrorism.
Does this mean an undercover investigator who exposes inhumane treatment at an animal laboratory, leading the lab to lose a contract, is a terrorist; anti-fur activists who protest in front of department stores, cutting into the store's profits, are terrorists; and activists who promote a boycott of a corporation's animal food products because of inhumane treatment of animals are terrorists? Could letter-writing campaigns and media exposure also be labeled as terrorist activities?
The last time I checked, such actions were examples of activism allowed by our First Amendment right to free expression and free assembly, actions that are intended to lead to loss of profits to encourage companies to conform to consumer wishes!
While the bill provides an exemption for "lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise," that exemption applies only to claims of economic "disruption" and not claims of economic "damage." It also does not necessarily cover the entire range of expression protected by the First Amendment, which covers more than a lawful "reaction" to a "disclosure of information." Ordinary people often would not understand which activities were prohibited and which were lawful.
"Terrorists" who simply exercise their First Amendment rights face draconian sentences of one to 20 years for their action. Compare this with federal sentencing guidelines of four months for larceny and three years for manslaughter!
Even if one agrees with prosecuting activists, AETA is unnecessary. Disciplinary measures already exist for vandalism and property loss, criminal trespass, harassment, assault and bodily injury. If activists are guilty of the aforementioned crimes, they will be arrested and prosecuted in the same manner as any other lawbreaker.
Many civil rights organizations oppose AETA. The American Civil Liberties Union wrote a letter to the U.S. Congress expressing its concern that "…the bill would also make the expanded crime a predicate for Title III federal criminal wiretapping. This provision could be used for widespread domestic surveillance….A court will be far more likely to find probable cause for a vague crime of causing economic damage or disruption to an animal enterprise than for a crime that requires some evidence that the organization plans to engage in activity causing illegal " 'physical disruption.' "
Some argue that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, the original law that AETA seeks to expand, is itself unconstitutional. On Oct. 3, Andrew Stepanian became the first person in the United States to do time under AEPA when he was sentenced to three years in prison, the maximum allowed under the law. The sentences for his fellow activists –- called the "SHAC 7" because of their activism on behalf of an organization called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty -- range from one to six years.
None of the SHAC activists were ever accused of causing physical damage to property or people. Instead, they were convicted of targeting the British animal research company Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) by maintaining a website which contained information that could potentially be used to commit a crime. Most controversially, the website provided information on HLS employees. The case has drawn scrutiny from civil rights advocates who say groups like SHAC have been singled out because they campaign against major corporations.
Although AETA has flown under the radar of most Americans, it poses a very really threat. AETA may initiate a domino effect in which legitimate social justice movements are labeled as terrorism. The risk of being charged as a terrorist could have a chilling effect on legitimate activism. If AETA were law years ago, civil rights activists could have been labeled and prosecuted as terrorists.
All Americans should be concerned about this gross infringement on the First Amendment. The term terrorism should not be used against peaceful social justice advocacy. Homeland Security should focus on genuine domestic security threats, rather than implement a law that erodes the First Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
Who will the next "terrorists" be?
Elaine Friedman is the editor of Humanist Network News, the weekly e-zine of the Institute for Humanist Studies.
