Read

Search form

1st Amendment On Trial As Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Is Challenged in Boston

1st Amendment On Trial As Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Is Challenged in Boston
Fri, 2/14/2014 - by Kevin Limiti

Can exposing and peacefully protesting animal mistreatment be considered terrorism? The answer depends on how you define terrorism – a question now being tested inside a Boston courtroom under the auspices of the federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), a vague law that challenges many non-violent tactics used to expose industries with a history of abusing animals.

When it passed the U.S. Senate without an actual vote and was signed into law by George W. Bush in 2006, AETA generated little public outcry. The same can’t be said today as Rachel Meerpol, senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, is representing plaintiffs in a high-profile First District Appeals Court case in Boston where she hopes to see AETA struck down on First Amendment violations.

The five animal rights activists represented in the lawsuit – Sarahjane Blum, Ryan Shapiro, Lana Lehr, Lauren Gazzola, and Iver Robert Johnson – say their right to free speech is being chilled by the law. In oral arguments made on February 3, Meerpol claimed that language in the bill was over-broad and featured “content and viewpoint discrimination,” according to an audio recording of the hearing.

Meerpol told Occupy.com this week that the law is having a “chilling effect” on protests involving animal rights.

"As corporations become more powerful and politicians become more indebted to corporate interests, we’re likely to see further erosion of First Amendment protection for advocacy that threatens their profits," Meerpol said.

It’s a powerful assertion – and not an untrue one. The driving force behind the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was the ultra-rightAmerican Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which wrote the model bill for AETA along with agri-business and biomedical industry groups including the Animal Enterprise Protection Coalition and the Center for Consumer Freedom.

According to the Center for Media and Democracy, ALEC – a secretive, back-room lobbying coalition that represents corporate interests and harnesses conservative state legislative power to write and pass pro-industry policy – is 98% funded by corporations.

AETA was specifically designed to target individuals exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech regarding the exposure of animal rights abuses and violations – by labeling them “eco-terrorists” and getting them locked up. California Senator Dianne Feinstein, a democrat, along with Oklahoma Republican Senator Jim Inhofe and Wisconsin Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner were early strong supporters of the bill.

In an audio recording of the Boston trial, the attorney representing the Department of State said the law did not represent a “reasonable chill” on constitutional rights because it did not prohibit the conduct that the plaintiffs wished to engage in – according to the law, “any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

However, at its core, the law represents a clear attempt to silence animal rights protesters – particularly when that protest involves releasing information or recorded footage that might economically hurt a business or the industry overall.

This can apply not only to activists and journalists doing their job, but even to people who hand out fliers that shine a light on animal abuses. The SHAC 7 – six activists and a corporation, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA Inc., who were found guilty of multiple federal felonies for their alleged role campaigning to close down the notorious Huntingdon Life Sciences animal testing lab – were [convicted in 2004 and each sentenced to four to six years in prison for “animal enterprise terrorism”]http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/tag/shac-7/) under the earlier version of the law known as the Animal Enterprise Protection Act.

Members of the SHAC 7 are among those represented in the current appeals case. The greatest challenge to opposing AETA in court – a difficulty that has played out in numerous trials involving laws passed in post-9/11 America – concerns the language of the bill, which is considered so vague as to encompass anyone who interferes in any way with businesses the AETA law is designed to protect.

The law and ensuing court cases have thus far received sparse media attention. But activist groups are starting to raise their voice. John Di Leonardo, an anthrozoologist and president of Long Island Orchestrating for Nature, said in a statement, “The only reason AETA is law is due to the immense wealth of the agribusiness lobby... The fact that this law pertains to only animal activists and not activists from other movements is a type of prejudice itself and a total insult to civil rights generally.”

“Is the terrorist the one trying to stop terrors from being inflicted,” said Di Leonardo, “or the one trying to instill terror in the former for practicing their First Amendment rights?”

And this raises perhaps the most crucial question: Why use the word “terrorist” to describe a person who peacefully interferes, through media or otherwise, with the business of unethical animal treatment? Is it justified for U.S. lawmakers to equate images of airplanes slamming into skyscrapers with activists who release photos, film or text – or simply hand out leaflets – revealing the torturous situation faced by animals at the hands of corporations?

It is a question the plaintiffs in Boston hope will be asked by Americans more widely, in this case and others moving forward. You can follow twitter updates on the AETA appeals case using #AETAspeakout.

Sign Up

Article Tabs

Twenty states, backed by Donald Trump’s Department of Justice, are trying in the courts to dismantle the law by attacking what they see as its Achilles heel: the individual mandate.

occupy, creative activism, activism, act out e165

A backlog that's symptomatic of a patriarchal system that not only devalues women but devalues survivors of sexual assault.

E.U. trade, U.S. trade war, aluminium tariffs, steel tariffs

“These tariffs aren’t even legal under U.S. law, let alone World Trade Organization laws. It seems rather odd to be citing national security and targeting countries including your closest allies.”

public banking, public banks, Bank of North Dakota, public financing, financing infrastructure, Wall Street influence, private-public investments

Private interests’ influence over banking consumes, rather than sustains, the public good.

Dodd-Frank act, Volcker Rule, bank deregulation, Wall Street lobby, proprietary trading, SEC

By revising the Volcker Rule, a centerpiece of the 2010 Dodd-Frank act, the feds are pushing financial regulation in a direction that should worry everyone.

The Trump administration has backtracked on its policy but offered no immediate plan for reuniting families. Photograph: Guillermo Arias/AFP/Getty Images

NGOs say bringing parents and children back together is an enormous puzzle with no clear system from the administration.

EPA, pollution deaths, pollution risks, Donald Trump, Scott Pruitt, respiratory illness

The authors used EPA’s own risk assessments to estimate the number of illnesses and early deaths prevented by clean air and water rules Trump is now trying to erase.

The Associated Press reports that young migrant children forcibly separated from their parents are being sent to facilities that critics described as "prisons for babies." (Photo: @NIJC/Twitter)

Those who have visited the facilites describe "play rooms of crying preschool-age children in crisis."

Twenty states, backed by Donald Trump’s Department of Justice, are trying in the courts to dismantle the law by attacking what they see as its Achilles heel: the individual mandate.

wage theft, corporate crimes, CEO pay,

An eye-opening new report has documented billions of dollars of corporate theft from workers. The government is turning a blind eye.

public banking, public banks, Bank of North Dakota, public financing, financing infrastructure, Wall Street influence, private-public investments

Private interests’ influence over banking consumes, rather than sustains, the public good.

Posted 4 days 23 hours ago
E.U. trade, U.S. trade war, aluminium tariffs, steel tariffs

“These tariffs aren’t even legal under U.S. law, let alone World Trade Organization laws. It seems rather odd to be citing national security and targeting countries including your closest allies.”

Posted 3 days 19 hours ago
U.S. Border Patrol agents take into custody a father and son from Honduras near the U.S.-Mexico border on June 12, 2018, near Mission, Texas. The asylum seekers were then sent to a processing center for possible separation. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images

A new report confirms that Trump and his advisers had been considering the brutal policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the border for as long as they’ve been in power.

Posted 5 days 4 min ago
family separations, ICE, immigrant deportations,

The size and brutality of this particular raid in Ohio, along with the use of military tactics, have shocked even the most seasoned immigrants’ rights activists.

Posted 4 days 6 min ago
occupy, creative activism, activism, act out e165

A backlog that's symptomatic of a patriarchal system that not only devalues women but devalues survivors of sexual assault.

Posted 2 days 17 hours ago
U.S. Border Patrol agents take into custody a father and son from Honduras near the U.S.-Mexico border on June 12, 2018, near Mission, Texas. The asylum seekers were then sent to a processing center for possible separation. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images

A new report confirms that Trump and his advisers had been considering the brutal policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the border for as long as they’ve been in power.

public banking, public banks, Bank of North Dakota, public financing, financing infrastructure, Wall Street influence, private-public investments

Private interests’ influence over banking consumes, rather than sustains, the public good.

EPA, pollution deaths, pollution risks, Donald Trump, Scott Pruitt, respiratory illness

The authors used EPA’s own risk assessments to estimate the number of illnesses and early deaths prevented by clean air and water rules Trump is now trying to erase.

E.U. trade, U.S. trade war, aluminium tariffs, steel tariffs

“These tariffs aren’t even legal under U.S. law, let alone World Trade Organization laws. It seems rather odd to be citing national security and targeting countries including your closest allies.”

The Trump administration has backtracked on its policy but offered no immediate plan for reuniting families. Photograph: Guillermo Arias/AFP/Getty Images

NGOs say bringing parents and children back together is an enormous puzzle with no clear system from the administration.