In the 50s the House Un-American Activities Committee subpoenaed liberals and former Communists and tried to force them to name names, implicating others for “subversive” activites. Now, grand juries go on fishing expeditions, threatening animal and environmental activists with jail if they refuse to name names and betray others.

Then as now, opportunists, reformists, and compromisers tried to protect themselves by distancing themselves from the radicals. In the 50s, it did them no good whatsoever and was cowardly and contemptible. It will do us no good now. Instead of excommunicating the radicals and issuing moralistic denunciations of their activities, we should express solidarity with them and oppose and protest against unjust, draconian laws which have a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

Guy wants “greater condemnation” from animal groups of activities by the ALF. The HSUS, an animal “welfare” organization, and Friends of Animals, an animal “rights” organization, have been vociferously condemning the ALF for years. This is a tactical error on their part. They should instead extend solidarity to the imprisoned activists. “An injury to one is an injury to all.”

To pursue the analogy to the anticommunist hysteria of the 50s, mainstream groups like HSUS and FoA who distance themselves from the radicals are like the liberal anti-communists of the 50s era, such as the labor unions and the Cold War liberals of the Democratic Party… the same bozos who brought us the Vietnam War.

The real libertarians and the real animal liberationists are those who support and extend solidarity to the ALF, the ELF, and SHAC, not those who confine their activism to the issuing of lofty moral pronouncements from their comfortable offices. That is not moral idealism; it is cowardice and political opportunism.

I agree with Joe, animal rights activism will never be taken serious among the majority of the population (whose mindsets you are looking to change), without greater condemnation from activists themselves of illegal and destructive actions and those who commit them. First and foremost, your “average joe” wants peace and love in this world. Trying to make a point through loud, hate-filled, angry and violent means will turn people off from your message before they’ve even heard the words you’re saying. I know this isn’t the popular choice, because it does not feed the ego as much as that above list of behaviors, but if you’re serious… SERIOUS, about trying to make a positive difference in this world, make sure you’re working more FOR the good, and less AGAINST the bad. And make sure you’re not redirecting your anger from somewhere else in your life AT animal rights activism…

If a bully beats somebody up, this is assault, and already illegal. If the bully insults his victim with words such as “nigger” or “faggot” or “kike” while beating him up, it is called a hate crime and given a more severe sentence. The difference is that the prejudiced bully has certain OPINIONS about blacks or gays or Jews. Such opinions may be deplorable, but they are opinions. Voltaire said: “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Why should a bully who beats somebody up and yells a word expressing some sort of prejudice be punished more severely than a bully who beats somebody up and does not yell such a word? He does not have any right to beat people up, but he does have a right to hold prejudiced opinions and should not be punished for these opinions. The differential in the sentences punishes the bully for holding prejudiced OPINIONS. Punishing people for their opinions is unconstitutional.

In the case of green scare defendants, the government wants to add “terrorism enhancements” to their sentences. Some of them could get 3 years without the terrorism enhancement, or 28 years with the enhancement. The differential of 25 years is punishing them for their OPINIONS. The U.S. government has no business telling the citizens what they are allowed to think.

I would recommend to Joe that he read John Stuart Mill’s essay “On Liberty” in order to appreciate the importance of freedom of thought. Societies that rely on thought control stagnate. Do we want America to become a stagnant society like Spain in the days of the Inquisition? If not, then we should support freedom of thought and expression and oppose laws like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, which are turning this country into a fascist dictatorship.

He still commited them and deserves to be in prison or can anyone who commits a felony just do some voulenteer work and then its forgoten?