Home protest by animal rights activists in Santa Cruz. Photo by AP/WSJ.

Home protest by animal rights activists in Santa Cruz. Photo by AP/WSJ.

When four animal rights activists were arrested under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, it was unclear how prosecutors would proceed, and what specific accusations the activists would face. Now, the government indictment, available here for the first time, makes it strikingly clear that prosecutors intend to use terrorism laws to target First Amendment activity.

The “AETA 4,”—Joseph Buddenburg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope, and Adriana Stumpo—have been indicted for “conspiracy” to violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. As justification of the charge, the indictment lists three specific acts:

  1. A protest on October 21, 2007, at an animal researcher’s home. The government says this amounts to “threats, criminal trespass, harassment and intimidation.” In the criminal complaint, the FBI said that on this date “protesters trespassed onto Professor Number One’s front yard and rang his doorbell several times. The group was making a lot of noise and chanting animal rights slogans (“1, 2, 3, 4 open up the cage door; 5, 6, 7, 8, smash the locks and liberate; 9, 10, 11, 12, vivisectors go to hell”)…”
  2. A protest on January 27, 2008, at an animal researcher’s home. The government says this amounts to “threats, harassment, and intimidation.” In the criminal complaint, the FBI said that on this date approximately 11 individuals demonstrated at the homes of multiple researchers. “At each residence, the individuals, dressed generally in all black clothing and wearing bandanas over their nose and mouth, marched, chanted, and chalked defamatory comments on the public sidewalks…”
  3. Use of the Internet. They allegedly “used the Internet to find information on bio-medical researchers at the University of California at Santa Cruz.”

Even more telling, though, is what is not listed in the indictment. In the criminal complaint and the FBI press release, the government mentioned the above allegations along with two other incidents—the only two incidents even approaching a “gray area” between protected speech and illegal conduct.

  • At one protest attended by the defendants, a researcher “struggled with one individual and was hit with a dark, firm object,” according to the FBI. (February 24, 2008)
  • A stack of fliers titled “Murderers and torturers alive & well in Santa Cruz July 2008 edition” was found at a local coffee shop, Café Pergolesi. The fliers said “we know where you live we know where you work we will never back down until you end your abuse” and listed home addresses and telephone numbers. The FBI used video surveillance to allegedly link the flier distribution to the defendants. (July 29, 2008)

Now, to be very clear, the details in an indictment aren’t the final word in any criminal case. They never reveal too much of the prosecution’s hand. They do, however, lay the backbone of the government’s case and put the prosecution’s best foot forward.

Omitting the most controversial, potentially-illegal activity, and instead focusing on protests that involved chalking slogans and chanting, sends a very clear message of where this is all heading. This case and others like it are not about underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front, they are not about “violence,” they are not about the real potential for violence.

They are about using the “War on Terrorism” to chip away at basic First Amendment rights and criminalize dissent.

Related posts:

  • adadad
    fuck animal rights! why dont those motherfuckers do sth else, such as put m0re energy in making more money and living a better life
  • Rose
    This is not the America I knew before 911. This is a different America with different rules and laws that don't reflect the laws of the U.S. Constitution. So, what's the point of freedom of speech in a free country if people can't blog their opinions on the internet? What's the point of protesting in a free country; speaking out and expressing one's opinion in a free country if every thing Americans seem to do or say anymore is a "terrorist" crime for Americans, but Americans aren't suppose to call the 911 jailed "detainees" - terrorists - but "detainees," I believe - I call them guests of the U.S. who the U.S. taxpayers must pay for their legal fees while the U.S. natural born citizens are being criminalized for speaking out protesting and told to get their own lawyers with their own money. I feel as if I fell asleep and I was high jacked by aliens from another planet and transported to a foreign land when I read these articles.
  • Flu-Bird
    Those animal rights activists in their stupid and rediclous protests only prove how stupid and rediculous they are i mean they just stage these stupid protests for the cameras if there were no journalists around you wouldnt see these idiots carrying that stupid sign and writting the stupid message on the pavment
  • Those activists are so stupid and "rediclous"? Um, yeah.
  • l(A)ntz.
    Have you read any of the comments posted on that article? It's some of the most enraging, ignorant shit I've ever heard. My first instinct is to register a username, and start a flame war. But I'm kind of sick today so I don't have it in me.

    Most people are talking about a home being firebombed, when none of the activists are even accused of that. Sigh. Now I know why some people are nihilists.
  • Feral Edge Revenge
    Omigod that link is great. I hope those people live in fear for their greed.
  • i hope they are freed immediately and win millions in a lawsuit against the federal government.

    it seemed that the aeta was just there to scare people from exercising their rights, i didn' t think the government would actually prosecute above ground activists for first amendment activity.
  • beardofzeuss
    are you unaware of the shac 7 trial? six above ground activists were already charged and indicted under the aeta...3 years ago!!! sentences ranging from 1 year to 7 years. 3 have finished serving these sentences, but the others are still in prison. all good friends and incredible activists.
  • I have reported extensively on the SHAC 7 trial. Their indictment was under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, not the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which was expanded after they were convicted.
  • beardofzeuss
    Hey Will,

    I know you have written about the SHAC 7 trial and thank you for the correction... I was actually just responding to the comment above mine by matt.

    Thanks for the tremendous work you do.
    Daniel
  • Oops, gotcha. Thanks Daniel!
  • ANONYMOUS
    Where you are wrong is this is not targetting 1st ammendment rights to target activists. It is the issue of injecting mystery fluids into the researcher, while the researcher was held against his will. Also this letter spread around with terroristic threat " We know where you live!" is premise for stalking and possible attempted murder charges since the mystery fluid di not kill the researcher abducted against his will. Get your facts straight!

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/...
  • "Injecting mystery fluids into the researcher"?

    That's a new one. Nice job pasting that link, mickey.mouse@aol.com, but unfortunately it never says anything like that. Neither does the criminal complaint, neither does the indictment, neither does any news article published about this case.
  • Anonymous
    somehow I doubt these AIG home protesters will be dubbed terrorists
  • Hank
    I hope they get 5 years.
  • twain
    geeze. if they could find the researchers info so easily, its public information, so how is it terrorism to compile it on a flyer. And I
    didn't know it was trespassing to ring a door bell and chant in the street. who was this really hurting?! Researcher could have just tried talking to them or acting like a normal human being instead of being prideful, pompous, and fearful & hiding behind the FBI and bureaucratic bs. And to live in a town like Santa Cruz and think you aren't going to have some repercussion or unsavory response is foolish. This is a disgusting abuse of the governments 'war on terror'.
    At this rate none of us will be able to have a voice.
  • the aeta legislation bans "instilling in another reasonable fear of serious bodily injury". i don't see any weapons in the pictures of the demos. the jury will convict these activists even if the evidence doesn't fit the crime.

    that there is laws protecting hunters and vivisectors from harassment so they can keep on killing makes me wonder if satan could be real.
  • I wonder if the feds are going to target me for merely visiting this website?
    Maybe they consider saying "go to hell" as a threat. I'm Catholic. I've been threatened "going to hell" all my life! Evangelical types are always doing this somewhere it seems.(Give your life to Jesus!-The end is near! etc...) Probably the "we know where you live" stuff, too! It is very much "Fight Club" type stuff. So, I can see why it freaks them out!
    Everyone is clamoring for change. But, the only way to draw attention, it seems, is to do something fairly annoying. I would love to believe that we could trust our government. It is a nice Utopian ideal. If the government would actually listen to the people and not the paid lobbyists things might get done.
    But, no. They don't. They only pay attention to the BIG money. As often as this gets said, and proven, it still hasn't soaked in, yet. It sorta makes you wonder whose side they are really on.
    America has a long history of Civil Disobedience. It is one of the founding principles to keep the government in check. And, yet, if one exercises this right, they are labeled a terrorist. Go figure. I am beginning to think that they are nothing more than hired thugs. A sort of legalized mafia. Which is sad. because i really want to believe that they are fighting for truth and justice.
  • Matthew
    The July 27 use of the internet likely loops in the July 29 fliers incident, but the fact that the alleged attempted home invasion isn't in there is pretty shocking.
  • Hmm, that could be. I was viewing the line about Internet usage as a catch-call to make all of this worthy of the federal AETA, but maybe it's broader than that.

    Considering how much hype those fliers got, and how the FBI was quoted in the press as trying to connect them to the placement of an incendiary device, I thought for sure they would have tried to play it up.
  • Anonymous
    This is so ridiculous. Using the internet and holding signs at a person's home is a terrorist activity?

    Didn't the NYPD hold a home demo against the mayor awhile back? Why aren't they all indicted as terrorists too?
blog comments powered by Disqus