Comments on: Animal Rights Activists Indicted as “Terrorists” For Home Protests

By: SE1949

SE1949 — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:13:00 +0000

Since their activities were intended to both intimidate and frighten, yes it was terrorisim. I think that you will find that in the wake of the behavior of the group “The Justice Department” down at UCLA — including fire bombings and threats to people’s children that most people here in California won’t tolerate the sort of behavior that AR groups have practiced in the UK and Europe for years now.nnI’ve said it about the anti choice groups and I’ll say it about these groups– a residential neighborhood is no place to be holding demonstrations — they interfere with the rights of the residents on the street to enjoy their homes in peace and security.

By: Andy Stepanian: Discovery Channel Gunman Is Not an Ecoterrorist if I Am - Fox News Watchdog

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 18:01:15 +0000

[...] In 2009 4 young activists were arrested and charged as terrorists for allegedly chalking defamatory … and allegedly producing & distributing pamphlets personally identifying and shaming animal researchers who engaged in practices they considered to be cruel. The law invoked in their case was the controversial Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AETA,) a designer statute lobbied for by special interests that aims to prosecute activists who “economically or physically disrupt the functioning of an animal enterprise.” The 4 activists, known as the AETA 4 by their activist peers are not accused by the government of engaging in violence, nor are they accused of encouraging others to do so, instead the government’s claim of physical disruption and a petty harassment claim are at the roots of their “terrorism” indictment. [...]

By: Anklage gegen AETA 4 zurückgewiesen! | Bite Back Germany | Time for Resistance

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:31:49 +0000

[...] und an Protesten teilgenommen hatten. Später, bei der offiziellen Anklage, war die Regierung immernoch sehr verschlossen, als es darum ging zu erklären, inwiefern ihr gewaltfreier, öffentlich legaler Protest mit [...]

By: AETA 4 Case Dismissed, Re-Indictment Possible « The Wingnut

AETA 4 Case Dismissed, Re-Indictment Possible « The Wingnut — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:43:13 +0000

[...] When Joseph Buddenberg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope and Adriana Stumpo were arrested in 2009, prosecutors said little other than that the group allegedly chalked slogans on the sidewalk, distributed fliers and attended protests. Later, when they were officially indicted, the government was still tight-lipped about how their non-violent, above-ground protests amounted to “terrorism.” [...]

By: BREAKING: AETA 4 Case Dismissed, But Re-Indictment Possible « Margotbnews's Blog

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:27:34 +0000

By: BREAKING: AETA 4 Case Dismissed, But Re-Indictment Possible « Thomas Paine's Corner

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 01:22:07 +0000

By: Attorney Matthew Strugar Explains the AETA 4 Case « VeganThis

Attorney Matthew Strugar Explains the AETA 4 Case « VeganThis — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:07:41 +0000

[...] Here’s a great, short video with Matthew Strugar explaining the case of the AETA 4, who are activists charged under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for protesting, chanting, and distributing fliers. [...]

By: Will Potter

Will Potter — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:05:27 +0000

Oops, gotcha. Thanks Daniel!

By: beardofzeuss

beardofzeuss — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 04:54:55 +0000

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

By: Will Potter

Will Potter — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:27:22 +0000

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.