Jurist is an online legal news service that has won many awards for its content, and is quite influential in legal circles. It was described by the ABA Journal as one of “the best Web sites by lawyers, for lawyers.” I was invited to contribute a commentary on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

Here’s an excerpt:

A recent undercover investigation into one of the nation’s largest egg producers, Sparboe Farms, documented hens mangled in cage wire, many with open wounds, and chicks having their beaks burned off by workers. This is just one of many investigations by animal welfare advocates that have exposed standard industry practices, created national dialogue about factory farming and in some cases prompted criminal charges. Newly released FBI documents show that the government is less concerned about these abuses and more concerned about the economic loss caused to businesses. The FBI has also been keeping files on factory farm investigators, and recommends prosecuting them as terrorists.

It may come as a shock to most people to learn of potential terrorism charges for investigators who, at worst, have trespassed or rescued a few injured animals. Yet, this is merely the latest chapter of a long-running campaign. I have documented how corporations created the term “eco-terrorism” in the 1980s and then used public relations campaigns, congressional hearings and ambitious court cases to manufacture what the FBI calls the “number one domestic terrorism threat.”

Perhaps the most dangerous tactic employed by corporations has been the manipulation of post-9/11 fears to enact designer terrorism legislation. Foremost among these new laws is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA). The act was passed in 2006 at the request of the National Association for Biomedical Research, Fur Commission USA, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Wyeth, United Egg Producers, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and many other corporations and business groups that have a financial stake in silencing animal rights activists.

You can read the full commentary, “Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Threatens Activism,” at Jurist.

The recent article about how the FBI recommended prosecuting video investigators as terrorists went viral, thanks to you all! It’s pretty amazing — more than 16,000 people shared the story on Facebook, and more than 100,000 unique visitors have viewed it on this website. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (and the Center for Constitutional Rights lawsuit against it is being talked about on many, many websites and forums. So thank you all for sharing this!

One of the best articles I’ve seen is by Dean Kuipers of the Los Angeles Times. Here’s an excerpt:

The documents, which were first published on Will Potter’s website, Green Is the New Red, were issued by the Joint Terrorism Task Force in 2003 in response to an article in an animal rights publication in which Shapiro and two other activists (whose names were redacted from the document), openly claimed responsibility for shooting video and taking animals from a farm…

Potter, who has looked into these state laws in more detail, points out, “There’s no shortage of laws that could be used to prosecute someone who is trespassing or someone who is vandalizing property in the process of an investigation. But these new laws are specifically aimed at mainstream animal rights and environmental groups who investigate abuse, such as the Humane Society, Mercy for Animals and PETA.”

The GreenIsTheNewRed.com article has gotten picked up by conservative websites like Little Green Footballs, liberal sites like Alternet, and everything in between. Readers have overwhelmingly been outraged by this misuse of “terrorism” legislation.

Big Ag, however, feels differently.

Dan Murphy is a public relations consultant for the meat and dairy industries, and a long-time supporter of “eco-terror” legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. In a column for Dairy Herd, he says the FBI is completely justified in targeted non-violent undercover investigators as terrorists. He goes so far as to compare the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act to hate crimes legislation targeting the KKK:

It’s no different from passing laws authorizing special punishment for so-called “hate crimes.” It’s always been possible to punish those who burn crosses, deface houses or otherwise harass people on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation. But often, the small fines and minimal jail terms prescribed by trespassing and property damage statutes don’t fit the egregious nature of the offenses. Thus, it’s necessary to identify special circumstances that change what would normally be mere misdemeanors into the more serious crimes that they are.

Murphy has this backwards, of course. The “egregious nature of the offenses” in this situation are not being committed by the activists. They are being committed by corporations. Activists have repeatedly exposed systemic animal welfare violations, and are non-violently documenting these practices to force businesses to change these practices.

It speaks volumes that the meat and dairy industries consider things like this to be less egregious than having their own institutionalized cruelty exposed.

This recent investigation of a McDonald's egg supplier is an example of the type of activism the FBI calls terrorism.

The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has kept files on activists who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms and recommended prosecuting them as terrorists, according to a new document uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act.

This new information comes as the Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as unconstitutional because its vague wording has had a chilling effect on political activism. This document adds to the evidence demonstrating that the AETA goes far beyond property destruction, as its supporters claim.

The 2003 FBI file details the work of several animal rights activists who used undercover investigation to document repeated animal welfare violations. The FBI special agent who authored the report said they “illegally entered buildings owned by [redacted] Farm… and videotaped conditions of animals.”

The animal activists caused “economic loss” to businesses, the FBI says. And they also openly rescued several animals from the abusive conditions. This was not done covertly in the style of underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front — it was an act of non-violent civil disobedience and, as the FBI agent notes, the activists distributed press releases and conducted media interviews taking responsibility for their actions.

Based on these acts — trespassing in order to photograph and videotape abuses on factory farms — the agent concludes there “is a reasonable indication” that the activists “have violated the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, 18 USC Section 43 (a).”

Click here to view the FBI document.

The file was uncovered through a FOIA request by Ryan Shapiro, who is one of the activists mentioned. The file is available for download here. [Please note that this document has additional redactions in order to protect the identities of the other activists, at their request.] Shapiro is now a doctoral candidate at MIT.

“It is deeply sobering to see one’s name in an FBI file proposing terrorism charges,” he said in an email. “It is even more sobering to realize the supposedly terroristic activities in question are merely exposing the horrific cruelty of factory farms, educating the public about what goes on behind those closed doors, and openly rescuing a few animals from one of those farms as an act of civil disobedience.”

When I testified before Congress against the AETA in 2006, one of the primary concerns I raised is that the law could be used to wrap up a wide range of activity that threatens corporate profits. Supporters of the AETA have repeatedly denied this, and said the law will only be used against people who do things like burn buildings.

So how do we explain that such a sweeping prosecution was being considered in 2003, under the law’s somewhat-narrower precursor?

One possibility is that FBI agents lack training, education, and oversight. They are spying on political activists without understanding or respecting the law.

Another explanation is that this document is no mistake, nor is it an isolated case. It is a reflection of a coordinated campaign to target animal rights activists who, as the FBI agent notes, cause “economic loss” to corporations.

Learn the full story of how corporations are targeting activists as "terrorists."

At the state, federal, and international levels, corporations have orchestrated an attempt to silence political activists, and a key target has been undercover investigators. For example:

• An “Ag Gag” bill has been introduced in Florida to criminalize investigations. Its lead sponsor calls these investigations “terrorism.” Four similar attempts failed in other states this year.
• These state bills are similar to model “eco-terrorism” legislation drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate front group.
• A recent EUROPOL report on international terrorism includes a section on undercover investigations by animal rights and environmental activists.
• 12 Spanish activists have been charged with terrorism for their investigations.
• Two activists in Finland faced similar charges.

The FBI makes clear that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is not about protecting public safety; it is about protecting corporate profits. Corporations and the politicians who represent them have repeatedly lied to the American public about the scope of this legislation, and claimed that the law only targets underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front. The truth is that this terrorism law has been slowly, methodically expanded to include the tactics of national organizations like the Humane Society of the United States.

This document illustrates how the backlash against effective activism has progressed within the animal rights movement. However, if this type of legislation is not overturned, it will set a precedent for corporations to use this model against Occupy Wall Street and anyone else who threaten business as usual.

A new lawsuit challenges the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act as unconstitutional because it has given activists reason to fear that they could be prosecuted as “terrorists” for non-violent civil disobedience, protests, and First Amendment activity.

The lawsuit was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of 5 longtime animal rights activists. The activists say the vague wording of the law, and the corporate-led campaigns against animal rights activism, have made them alter their own advocacy.

The landmark case has implications for all social justice movement, beyond the animal rights activists targeted. It sets a dangerous precedent for labeling anyone who effectively threatens corporate profits a “terrorist.” As the Occupy Wall Street Movement grows rapidly, and has begun reclaiming foreclosed homes from banks and shutting down ports, this lawsuit couldn’t come at a more pressing time. And with the impending passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, the dangers of this parallel legal system for “terrorists” has become strikingly clear.

The lawsuit seeks to strike down the law for violating the First and Fifth Amendments [read the criminal complaint in Blum v. Holder]. Specifically, it argues that the law is unconstitutional for 3 reasons:

1. It is so broad that it has had a chilling effect on free speech. The law hasn’t outlawed animal rights activism, but it has made activists think twice about using their rights. This was the primary point I raised in my Congressional testimony against the law in 2006, and since then the political climate has become even more toxic. The first use of the law was based on activists allegedly chalking slogans on the sidewalk and wearing bandanas. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is an attempt by corporations to use the power of fear in order to silence their opposition.
2. The language is so vague that people can’t decipher what is illegal. The law’s criminalization of “interfering with” the operations of an animal enterprise, or causing a “loss of profits,” leave activists wondering if they could be labeled a terrorist for a successful lawful campaign. This is compounded by the law’s emphasis on “tertiary targeting”: it not only protects animal enterprises,” but any business that does business with an animal enterprise. When politicians, the courts, lawyers, and national organizations cannot agree on the meaning of this law, it is dangerously overbroad.
3. It singles out animal rights activist because of their political beliefs and their effective advocacy. Meanwhile, violence by anti-abortion extremists is not being labeled as terrorism. For more on this: “If Sarah Palin Were an Animal Rights Activist, She’d Have Already Been Convicted of ‘Terrorism.” Singling out groups of people because of their political beliefs, and restricting their First Amendment rights, is antithetical to a healthy democracy.

Here is a detailed, step-by-step analysis of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act if you are interested. I wanted to focus a bit on the people involved in the lawsuit, though:

Sarahjane Blum has been an animal rights activist for 23 years. She co-founded GourmetCruelty.com in 2003, which exposed the cruelty of the foie gras industry and helped California to ban foie gras farming. According to the lawsuit: “While she had knowingly and openly violated the law many times through acts of non-violent civil disobedience, she was unwilling to face the possibility of prosecution and sentencing as a terrorist. She was stunned that the ethical, important work that she had devoted her life to had been turned overnight into terrorism.”

Ryan Shapiro is now a doctoral candidate at MIT studying the history of political repression against animal rights activists. With Sarahjane Blum, he co-founded GourmetCruelty.com, produced a documentary film, and spoke publicly about his work. He was also friends with the SHAC 7 — a group of activists convicted as terrorists. “Faced with the imprisonment of his friends, and with the passage of the AETA, Mr. Shapiro began to worry that the price for peaceful protest and civil disobedience was one he could not afford to pay.”

Lana Lehr has organized for the welfare of rabbits, and also protested the sale of their fur. After the passage of the AETA, she found herself altering her protest activity and censoring her words and her writing online.

Lauren Gazzola is one of the SHAC 7. She recounts a lecture she gave at a law school class where she censored herself from encouraging activists to follow her advocacy, because she feared her words would be used as evidence of conspiracy to violate the AETA.

Jay Johnson, who has confirmed that he has been placed on a terrorist watchlist, has witnessed the chilling effect on grassroots animal rights activism. After the case of the SHAC 7 and the passage of the AETA, protest attendance plummeted. For instance, he recounts a protest against a company affiliated with Huntingdon Life Sciences: “When he arrived at the site of the planned protest, he was met by over 40 police officers in riot gear, and not a single other protestor.”

In the interest of full disclosure, I have known several of these plaintiffs for well over a decade, as activists and as friends.

I point this out because I want to take the liberty of saying that this lawsuit was not an easy decision for them. There’s of course a fear of drawing a giant red target on one’s back, but the primary concern of these plaintiffs is not themselves — it’s the animals, and those advocating on their behalf. All of these activists are deeply committed to the animal rights movement, and they had to answer the uncomfortable question: “Does acknowledging fear draw even more attention to it? Could this make even more people afraid?”

But this lawsuit is more about courage than fear. It is about these plaintiffs and the CCR having the courage to acknowledge that this political climate exists, that what we are experiencing is real and it is valid, and that we can’t move forward by pretending it doesn’t affect us. It is to say, unequivocally: “Yes, we have been afraid. Yes, we have all known fear. And now it is time to fight back.”

Florida Senator Jim Norman wants to stop activists from exposing factory farms.

Earlier this year, four states were considering “ag gag” bills to criminalize photography, or video or audio recording, of what goes on at factory farms, animal experimentation labs, and other facilities. They all failed, but as I have been saying for months, it will only be a matter of time before these bills are modified and reintroduced.

In Florida, the first has just resurfaced. Senator Jim Norman, who said undercover investigations are “almost like terrorism,” has a new bill. SB 1184 revises a few agriculture statutes that deal with stormwater management, feedstuffs, and citrus harvesting equipment. Then it ends with a transparent attack on the First Amendment.

SB 1184 says:

A person may not knowingly enter upon any nonpublic area of a farm and, without the prior written consent of the farm’s owner or the owner’s authorized representative, operate the audio or video recording function of any device with the intent of recording sound or images of the farm or farm operation.

It makes exemptions for law enforcement and government employees but, of course, there are no exemptions for journalists or activists. That’s the point. Norman filed his original bill at the urging of an egg farmer, Wilton Simpson, who wanted to stop activists from gathering video footage to use in a state ballot initiative against factory farm cruelty (similar to the successful California initiative).

These ag gag bills created quite an uproar when they were introduced. Most people are unaware, though, that dozens of states already have designer laws protecting factory farms from activists.

Florida “Eco-Terrorism” Law Put to Use

Florida already has a law called the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (FL ST § 828.40 – 43). It passed in 1993 at the request of industry, ostensibly to target groups like the Animal Liberation Front who cause “physical disruption” or the loss of property. It has sat on the shelf for years. That is until this month, when an animal rights activist was charged with a felony in what seems to be the very first use of the law.

Chris Lagergren was arrested at gunpoint by an off-duty Miami cop outside of the Marine Mammal Conservancy in Key Largo.

So what was he allegedly doing that prompted an armed cop, 100 miles outside of his jurisdiction, to arrest him at gunpoint? And what was so dangerous that Lagergren’s bond was set at $30,000?

According to the police report, he had been taking photographs and was tampering with a fence:

R. Lingenfelser [the president of the facility] stated he has seen Chris for the past two weeks standing on the Hampton Inn property, video taping the Marine Mammal property and its staff.

Lingenfelser says he saw Lagergren and another individual attempting to dismantle a fence, and called the police. He said the FBI had warned him that Lagergren, a well-known activist in the area, ”is going to attempt to release any caged animals [or] mammals into their natural habitat” as part of the Animal Liberation Front, a “domestic terrorist organization.”

This isn’t the first time Lingenfelser has had run-ins with photographers. He previously threatened a photographer with a felony for taking photos of whales.

Lingenfelser may not be a credible source, but as Carlos Miller wrote on the photography site Pixiq: “That’s not to say Lagergren wasn’t trying to free the whales that day… But until they catch him doing something more than just taking photos or trespassing, they should treat him like any other suspect arrested on misdemeanor charges.”

Lagergren is facing up to five years in prison.

Making Bad Laws Even Worse

Many of these original state laws were passed under the auspices on targeting the “radicals,” underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front. It is quite clear, though, that existing laws have already gone too far, and are disproportionately targeting non-violent activists. And while all this is occurring, industry groups are relentlessly pushing to go even further, and transparently target First Amendment activity.

This is the model. This is how corporations and the politicians who represent them are chipping away at constitutional rights. It begins with laws targeting the “terrorists” (who, at the very worst, have damaged property) and then, bit by bit, year by year, the net widens as it wraps up an ever-growing group of people, such as those who photograph facilities that have sent whales to Sea World, and those who expose animal cruelty on factory farms.

Moving forward, people like Senator Norman, the FBI, and industry groups will do everything they can to keep your focus on activists like Mercy for Animals, the Humane Society, and Chris Lagergren. Instead, we need to keep our focus on them, and ask ourselves:

What are they trying to hide?

Want to take action? Sign the petition for Chris Lagergren. And contact Florida senators and urge them to oppose SB 1184.

The U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to maintain provisions in a bill that would allow the military to apprehend U.S. citizens, including those on U.S. soil, without charge, and hold them indefinitely if they are labeled as terrorists. President Obama has threatened a veto.

The vote comes after attempts by the American Civil Liberties Union and others to strip the massive National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of these components. An amendment by Senator Mark Udall of Colorado failed by a 61-37 vote.

Udall warned “these proposed changes would require the military to take on a new responsibility as police, jailors and judges — jobs for which it is not equipped and which it does not want. These changes to our laws would also authorize the military to exercise unprecedented power on U.S. soil.”

Why is this so dangerous? As Shahid Buttar of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee said pointedly:

“We have courts in America to check executive power. Impartial judges limit over whom the state may exercise its coercive power to deny freedom. We don’t trust prosecutors to make those decisions, because we presume innocence. Being considered ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is a bedrock constitutional norm, a cornerstone in the edifice our Founders constructed to defend freedom from the potential tyranny that Levin & McCain casually invite.”

Supporters of the provisions, including Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz), say the bill only targets al-Qaeda (the unspoken rationale, of course, is that we are to believe that anyone accused of being associated with Al-Qaeda is not entitled to a fair trial). Yet they go on to note “the administration has broad authority to decide who is covered by this provision and how and when such a decision is made.”

As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said: ”The enemy is all over the world. Here at home… They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer…”

There are plenty of excellent blog posts out there right now dissecting the minutiae of the bill (a great starting point is my former colleague Chris Anders’ analysis for the ACLU).

The point that I think needs to be emphasized, though, is how this fits into the bigger political picture. This bill is a concrete manifestation of what is often a quite nebulous topic — the erosion of our fundamental rights and liberties. In that context, there are two concepts that cannot be emphasized enough:

1) This bill is a reflection of a parallel legal system that has been created for those deemed “terrorists.” It is about “apprehension” rather than “arrest.” It is “indefinite detention” rather than “fair trial.” Those who are labeled as terrorists are stripped of their basic rights and ushered through a separate legal system, where they have no power to challenge their designation, all in the name of national security. This parallel legal system may share similar features, but it is not about fairness — it is a spectacle of democracy. This parallel system is not new. It exists in Communications Management Units, Guantanamo Bay, designer terrorism laws like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, grand jury witch hunts, and more. This is, however, a radical expansion of that trend.

2) That parallel system, by definition, lacks checks and balances on government power. We are told that this is why a separate set of laws is needed for terrorists: the existing checks and balances are too burdensome. Yet, no agent of the state could ever openly say “give us more power Power POWER without accountability!” We have to be reminded that, as Levin and McCain have feebly retorted, this is “only” about Al-Qaeda.

As a result, we have two competing messages. Politicians say out of one side of their mouth: “Trust us, this is just about those evil, evil, terrorists of Al-Qaeda. No one else has anything to worry about.”

Out of the other side of their mouth, they say: “Well, the threat of terrorism is fluid, and we need the broad authority to expand the scope at any time.”

Which one do you believe?

Contact your senators to register your opposition, and contact the White House to urge a veto.

Documents released today shed new light on how corporations are directly drafting legislation through the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. The Center for Media and Democracy has publicized more than 800 of ALEC’s “model bills” that have been created by corporations, and introduced across the country, all without other lawmakers and the public having any idea of their origins.

I have written at length about ALEC’s model “eco-terrorism” legislation, which has been introduced in at least 16 states (a recent attempt in Washington would have made civil disobedience by environmentalists “terrorism”). These documents show how this group has a hand in many, many other issues. Busting unions, deregulating energy, gutting health care reforms, privatizing prisons… you name it and ALEC’s corporate members have drafted a bill about it.

This is bigger than any single issue, though, and bigger than what some are describing as a conservative corporate agenda. ALEC should concern everyone, regardless of politics, because it its existence and power are incompatible with a healthy democracy.

How?

Here’s an excerpt from a section in my book that gives an overview of how ALEC works:

Corporations including Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Amoco, Chevron, Shell and Texaco pay nearly all of ALEC’s expenses. The more they pay, the more power they have. Basic membership is $7,000 per year. Joining at increasingly elite levels—the Washington Club, Madison Club, or Jefferson Club— costs up to $50,000.

“Our members join for the purpose of having a seat at the table,” said Dennis Bartlett of ALEC in 1997. “That’s just what we do, that’s the service we offer. The organization is supported by money from the corporate sector, and, by paying to be members, corporations are allowed the opportunity to sit down at the table and discuss the issues that they have an interest in.”

This is the heart of the Trojan horse. Power in ALEC does not come from political acumen, it comes from brute financial force. Corporations buy their way onto one of ALEC’s specialized task forces. There, “legislators welcome their private-sector counterparts to the table as equals,” according to one ALEC publication. Actually, the corporate counterparts are more than equal. They have veto power. No bill is released from a task force without their approval. The results of such an arrangement are predictable. The task force on criminal justice, for example, has been co-chaired by a represen- tative of Corrections Corporation of America, the nation’s largest operator of private prisons. In 1996, ALEC issued model legislation to deregulate utility markets: the legislation was pushed by Koch Industries and Enron.

After corporate members use ALEC to draft dream legislation, the “model” bills go home with state legislators. The ALEC bills are introduced, debated and voted on by other lawmakers who think the proposals are democratic creations.

Let’s put this another way. Corporations may not be allowed to vote (yet), but through ALEC, they have an even greater power: they craft bills and frame the debate before any votes are cast.

Visit “ALEC Exposed” and check out some of the documents for yourself (they’re all available in zip files). Which bills did you find most outrageous?

UPDATE: Protest ALEC in New Orleans August 5th.

NPR’s “On The Media” invited me to discuss the attempts by multiple states to outlaw undercover investigations of factory farms, animal experimentation labs, puppy mills and other industries.

My interview with Bob Garfield of NPR is online now. And the interview is even more timely because, as I reported yesterday, New York is now considering similar legislation.

If you’re not familiar with the program, On The Media is one of NPR’s most popular shows, airing on over 200 stations. It has won Edward R. Murrow Awards for feature reporting and investigative reporting, along with a National Press Club Award and a Peabody. (In short: I had to do my best not to totally geek out with joy about being on one of my favorite shows).

You can listen to this episode of NPR’s On The Media online here.

A bill introduced in New York would criminalize undercover investigators who expose animal cruelty at factory farms and animal experimentation labs. The proposal is similar to other “Ag-Gag” legislation recently introduced in other states.

The bills targeting undercover investigators in Iowa, Florida, and Minnesota have been met with such public outrage that two of them (Florida and Minnesota) have already failed. The remaining bill in Iowa has faced bipartisan opposition, including national Republican political pundit Mary Matalin.

Because of the overwhelmingly negative public response, the New York bill is slightly different. Proponents of the Ag-Gag bill have tried to shift the discussion away from undercover investigators. Instead, sponsor Patty Ritchie describes S5172-2011 as a tool to fight “meth addicts” and protect “the safety of our food supply.”

But this bill is not about “meth addicts.”

S5172 criminalizes undercover investigators and whistleblowers by targeting “audio recording or photography done without the farm owner’s written consent.”

What are these factory farms trying to hide? Well, a recent investigation by Mercy for Animals at New York’s largest dairy factory farm, Willet Dairy, exposed calves having their tails cut off without pain killers and being dragged away from their mothers. And a Compassion Over Killing investigation of Hudson Valley Foie Gras in New York showed workers forcing tubes into ducks’ throats.

It is no coincidence that politicians like Patty Ritchie (who campaigned on an ag-friendly platform) and Catharine Young (who has championed the $30 million Dairy Assistance Program) are introducing legislation that would shield their corporate constituents from public scrutiny. This has been the pattern nationally. As this map reveals, the states with the highest concentration of undercover investigations are also the states that have introduced legislation criminalizing those investigations.

This New York bill, like all the others, is about criminalizing and prosecuting anyone who threatens corporate interests. Like the Iowa, Florida and Minnesota bills, this legislation is a response to the effective campaigns of animal protection groups that have exposed systemic animal cruelty.

In some ways this New York bill is more dangerous than the others, because there is a greater chance of it passing. Senators Ritchie and Young are attempting to deflect opposition by misleading the pubic. The bill is titled as “relates to unlawful tampering with farm animals,” while it is actually about stopping anyone who exposes animal cruelty. The bill is summarized as pertaining to meth addicts and homeland security, but the text makes clear that is focused on animal rights activists.

Everything about this bill, from the undercover investigators it criminalizes to its false and misleading re-branding, is about keeping New York consumers in the dark.

The Huffington Post just published my op-ed on new bills being considered to criminalize undercover investigators, and punish anyone who exposes what goes on at factory farms.

Here’s an excerpt:

Undercover investigations by the Humane Society, Mercy for Animals and other groups have exposed systemic animal cruelty at factory farms. The video footage has led to criminal convictions in Iowa, voter referendums in Florida, and consumer outrage at the most egregious animal welfare abuses.

Rather than put an end to these practices, though, corporations and agriculture industry groups have hit back with another plan: criminalize anyone who exposes their wrongdoing.

Read the whole thing on Huffington Post, and please share it and leave a comment! This is my first time writing for Huffington Post, and it would be great to show that people care deeply about these issues.