In September, the night before lawmakers left for mid-term campaigning, the Senate rushed to pass the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act: the mainstream press remained silent. Yesterday, the House pushed through identical legislation that labels non-violent activists as “terrorists”: still, the mainstream press remained eerily silent. The only coverage I’ve seen is from the Associated Press, and that amounts to a few paragraphs that doesn’t mention the corporations behind the bill, doesn’t mention that the existing legislation has been used against First Amendment activity and doesn’t raise any questions whatsoever about the broader civil liberties implications of “eco-terrorism” and Green Scare rhetoric.

This legislation will impact all activists, regardless of their tactics or their beliefs, yet there has only been modest coverage in the alternative press. This legislation will impact all Americans, because it will waste scarce anti-terrorism resources persecuting activists as “terrorists,” yet deer-related car crashes are getting more media attention.

Web traffic to GreenIsTheNewRed.com is through the roof, and I’m extremely appreciative. But the mainstream press has dropped the ball, here, and reporters need to be held accountable. Here are some questions reporters need to be asking:

Q. Some animal and environmental activists have destroyed property, but no human has ever been injured or killed: can crimes like this truly be considered “terrorism”?

Q. If the legislation will only target underground activists and not First Amendment activity, how do proponents explain the fact that the original legislation has been used to go after activists who ran a controversial website?

Q. If First Amendment lawyers, Congressional staff and national organizations like the ASPCA disagree about the scope of this law, why should activists believe it will not be used against them?

Q. Would this legislation set a precedent for targeting other activists as terrorists? Could Democrats, for instance, turn around and use this strategy against the anti-abortion movement, which has actually murdered people?

Q. Considering that the SHAC 7 were convicted in March under the original law, and environmental activists have been rounded up and charged under “Operation Backfire,” isn’t this legislation a solution in search of a problem?

According to Congressional Quarterly, the Department of Homeland Security does not list right-wing terrorists on a list of national security threats. Those groups have been responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta, violence against doctors and admittedly creating weapons of mass destruction. But animal rights and environmental activists still top the domestic terrorist list.

Using terrorism legislation to target political activists, while casually ignoring violent actions in the name of other political causes, sends a chilling message to the animal rights and environmental movements. Activists know that they are being targeted in this War on Terrorism not because of their actions, but because of their beliefs. That alone has had a chilling effect on First Amendment activity, and made activists fearful of being labeled “terrorists.”

This legislation has passed, but unless reporters ask tough questions, industry groups won’t stop there. Just as the Animal Enterprise Protection Act only whetted their appetites, this legislation will not sate them. As David Martosko of the Center for Consumer Freedom, an industry lobby group, said after the conviction of the SHAC 7 under the original law: “This is just the starting gun.”