Fifty years ago this month, four black students sat at a Woolworth’s whites-only lunch counter and refused to move. The following day 25 students did the same. A few days later, more than 300 showed up. The sit-ins quickly spread across the South and were a critical component of the civil rights movement. Decades later, the same conduct by animal rights and environmental activists are “terrorism” under a bill introduced in Washington State.

Senator Val Stevens has sponsored SB 6566, “an act prohibiting terrorist acts against animal and natural resource facilities.” The so-called “eco-terrorism” bill, like many others, ostensibly targets underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. However, the bill is so broad that it explicitly targets non-violent civil disobedience and outlaws speaking out in support of “eco-terrorists.”

Here is the text of the bill. Among its provisions:

• Its sweeping definition of “eco-terrorist organization” could wrap up countless above-ground activists. It defines “animal rights or ecological terrorist organization” to mean “two or more persons with the primary or incidental purpose of intimidating, coercing, causing fear with the intent to obstruct, or impeding any person from participating in an activity involving animals” or natural resources. That last clause is the kicker. The bill’s definition of a terrorist organization includes any activist group that impedes business operations.
• Civil disobedience is “terrorism.” The bill explicitly mentions “Entering or remaining on the premises of an animal or horticultural facility if the person or organization” has “received notice to depart but failed to do so.”
• Speaking out in support of “eco-terrorists” is terrorism. The bill targets those who: “Participate in or support animal or ecological terrorism, including raising, soliciting, collecting, or providing any person with material, financial support, or other resources such as lodging, training, safe houses, false documentation, or identification, communications, equipment, or transportation that will be used in whole or in part to encourage, plan, prepare, carry out, publicize, promote, or aid an act of animal or ecological terrorism, the concealment of, or an escape from an act of animal or ecological terrorism.”

That final bullet point is the most dangerous section of the entire bill. It outlaws any activity, including communications, that “will be used in whole or in part to encourage,” “publicize,” or “promote” an act of animal or ecological terrorism.

“Encourage.” “Publicize.” “Promote.” There is absolutely no doubt that this language is intended to target the work of groups like the Earth Liberation Front Press Office, North American ALF Press Office, Bite Back Magazine, Earth First Journal, and others who distribute the communiqués of underground groups and vocally defend illegal tactics.

Make no mistake: that’s what this law is about. Speech. Sure, it includes stiffer penalties for property crimes and civil disobedience. The real danger, though, is the creation of a new class of law that explicitly exempts the First Amendment activity of those who support “terrorists.”

In my opinion, the law is so broad it could go even further, targeting those who provide “financial support” through legal defense funds. That’s debatable, of course, and that’s the problem; the law is so vague and broad that it is open to the exploitation of corporations, politicians and ambitious prosecutors.

Unfortunately, bills like this are nothing new. In fact, much of the language in this bill has been directly copied and pasted from a template bill created by the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council. You can read ALEC’s “Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act” here. A similar ALEC bill in Tennessee was described by its sponsor as targeting “left-wing eco-greenies.”

This bill, and others like it, have literally been bought and paid for by corporations.

Meanwhile, if you replace “animal and ecological” with “civil rights” throughout this bill, it could easily have been used against those activists at the Woolworth’s lunch counter, the Greensboro Four. Fifty years of history have made it easy, and even expected, to support once-controversial social movements and radical tactics.

The site of the Greensboro Four’s historic “terrorism” has now been commemorated with the opening of the International Civil Rights Center and Museum.

UPDATE: The bill did not make it out of committee, and will not pass this session. We’ll stay on the lookout for future incarnations, as similar versions of this bill have been introduced in Washington State many times.

The National Lawyers Guild has a new report on state-level versions of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act that have been popping up around the country. As I’ve reported here previously, on laws such as the California Animal Enterprise Protection Act, they use sweeping, overly broad definitions of terrorism that are, in some cases, even worse than the federal law. (Here’s one of my all-time favorite blog posts in which a Tennessee lawmaker describes how similar legislation is needed to combat “left-wing eco-greenies.”

Take a look at the full report, and the influence of a corporate front group called the American Legislative Exchange Council: “Beyond the AETA: How Corporate-Crafted Legislation Brands Activists as Terrorists.”

As NLG Executive Director Heidi Boghosian said:

“Although many states considered and outright rejected the ALEC bill soon after its release, there are still signs that parts of the legislation are being incorporated in some states’ laws that equate animal rights activists with domestic terrorism.”

The National Lawyers Guild continues to be out front on these issues, with its publication of a know your rights booklet for activists, and it’s Green Scare hotline, 1-888-NLG-ECOL. And NLG lawyers around the country have been working hard on behalf of animal rights and environmental activists labeled “terrorists.” If you’re a lawyer, please join the Guild. And if you’re not a lawyer, write a check, volunteer, or just drop them a note of support.

Tim DeChristopher. Photo by Washington Post Newsweek Interactive.

• “Arson is not getting the environmental movement anywhere – that’s the kind of tactics that just turn people off from the message.”
• “You can’t burn down a building because you disagree.”
• “In the United States, one does not resort to fear and intimidation to make a point or to effect change, but that is what the ELF is all about: violence, arrogance and self-righteousness. It takes time and effort to effect change legally, because other people and other institutions may have different priorities and different viewpoints. Rather than engaging those people and institutions with reason in broad daylight, ELF chooses to engage them with fire and violence in the middle of the night.”

[Oops, that last one is actually a news release quote from the government. It seems that that federal prosecutors and mainstream environmental groups are using the same talking points.]

The recurring message goes something like this: Marie Mason broke the law. She used arson and economic sabotage as political tactics. She’s an extremist. If you protest the right way, though, you don’t have anything to worry about. The government is only going after the radicals.

Here’s the deal folks: naming names, condemning “radicals,” and pledging loyalty oaths didn’t protect anyone during the Red Scare, and it’s not going to protect environmental activists now.

A perfect example of this: A Utah lawmaker is promising to introduce new “eco-terrorism” legislation. His target? It’s not the Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, or some shadowy underground group. He’s openly, proudly targeting mainstream environmentalists.

He points to people like Tim DeChristopher, the University of Utah student who disrupted an oil and gas auction by bidding on parcels of land.

Noel [the legislator] said stopping a legal oil lease is no different than “burning down a man’s cattle operation — eco-terrorism.” DeChristopher “took millions of dollars away from us, and he’s laughing at us. It’s not right. It’s not fair.”

This isn’t an isolated example. When incendiary devices were left at the home of a California researcher, the government recklessly blamed it on animal rights activists. The Humane Society of the United States donated money to an “eco-terrorist” witch hunt in order to distance itself from any illegal activity. And you know what happened? It didn’t protect them from industry groups.

I never discuss tactics on this site or in my speaking events. I never talk about the efficacy or morality of direct action, sabotage, arson, or violence. And that’s for one reason: When it comes to the government and corporate campaign to label activists as terrorists, tactics don’t matter.

These people are hitting ELF activists, Greenpeace and Animal Planet with the same, sweeping label. It’s a coordinate campaign to instill fear and chill dissent, and it’s growing every day.

The only way the environmental and animal rights movements are going to make it through this is if mainstream groups stop blaming activists for their repression, stop repeating the government sound bites, and start fighting back.

Good news from South Dakota: a state House committee shot down an “animal rights terrorism” bill proposed by the university.

The bill was nearly identical to new, sweeping “animal enterprise terrorism” legislation in California. Similar laws have been pushed around the country by right-wing groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (you might remember the Tennessee lawmaker who said “eco-terrorists” are “left-wing eco-greenies”). It’s part of a coordinated campaign to label animal rights and environmental activists as “terrorists” by distorting existing laws and pushing for new ones.

What I found especially interesting about this is that “the State Affairs Committee voted 11-2 to kill HB1078 after committee members said current law already makes it a crime to hurt or harass someone.”

At first blush, that just seems like a no-brainer. But that’s also a very conservative rational. It should be a reminder that folks who are probably unsympathetic to animal or environmental issues (ie: solidly-McCain South Dakota lawmakers) can still reject “eco-terrorism” rhetoric if framed the right way. You don’t have to be vegan, against animal research, or pro direct action to reject a law that duplicates existing laws and singles out one class of people for political purposes.

To be clear, this is a small victory, and there’s a long way to go in not only rejecting new legislation, but repealing existing legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. But, as I learned firsthand a few months ago: If your house is flooding, the first thing to do is turn off the water.

Santa Cruz bombing at the home of a university scientist who tests on animals. Associated Press.

First, it should be noted that no animal rights group like the Animal Liberation Front has claimed responsibility. Yet the FBI has recklessly labeled this “eco-terrorism,” just like the recent Seattle arson, before the smoke had even cleared. We’ve seen plenty of instances when the government later says “oops, it wasn’t ‘eco-terrorism’ after all.” And we’ve seen other instances, like the attempted murder of Judi Bari, when the FBI framed activists. In short: reporters, activists, and the general public need to slow down, step back, and stop blindly trusting the “official” story provided by the FBI.

In this “with us or against us” War on Terrorism, though, facts don’t really matter. All that matters, in the eyes of the government and corporations, is whether you are in the “with us” camp or the “against us” camp.

In hopes of avoiding the latter, the Humane Society of the United States has offered $2,500 to the “eco-terrorism” witch hunt in California.

It’s strategic for HSUS to try to stay far, far away from this mess, since the organization is pushing a historic ballot initiative for farmed animals in the state. But corporations and industry groups have already responded to the PR gesture, loud and clear: all the donations, press releases and sound bites in the world won’t protect you.

From the Center for Consumer Freedom:

“Nobody should be fooled by HSUS’s paltry gesture. While pretending to be part of the solution, the group continues to be a significant part of the problem—an over-zealous social movement bent on extending legal rights to animals, whether or not thinking people like the consequences. The entire community of Santa Cruz is learning this week what can happen when human beings resist the sort of evolution the animal rights community has planned for them. And it’s not pretty.”

We’ve already seen how the New McCarthyists are exploiting crimes like this to push a broader political agenda. They’re saying if you oppose bombings, you must support legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and a new California “eco-terrorism” law. They’re saying if you oppose bombings, you must support home raids. They’re saying if you oppose bombings, you must support hauling activists before grand juries.

Their goal here is not to solve this crime, or stop underground groups. Why? Because the true threat here is not the tactic, the true threat is the belief system. This is a culture war. Don’t just take my word for it. Feedstuffs, an “agribusiness” publication, said the HSUS ballot initiative in California represented the threat of a “vegetarian nation.” Fight them with everything you have, it warned: The “dam must not be breached.”

In many ways, Feedstuffs and CCF are absolutely right. This is a turning point in history. Not just for the animal rights movement, but for a country showing frightening parallels to the worst eras of government repression. The question, then, is this: Should we all, like HSUS, try to buy ourselves a little time? Or should we step up and fight the New McCarthyists head on?

[And to continue the heated discussion on a previous post... Where do you draw the line in terms of activist groups proclaiming their disapproval of other activists? With awards for arresting activists? With counter-protests? With press releases? When (if ever) is it appropriate and effective?]

What do you think?

“Eco-terrorism” is a buzzword that corporations and the politicians who represent them have been throwing around more and more since 9/11. But like the bigger T-word, it’s a term without much of a definition. “Eco-terrorism” has been used to describe burning SUVs, and other property crimes by the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. It has been used to describe terrorism against the environment. It has been used to describe real estate deals. It has been used to describe attending vegan potlucks, dating the wrong people, and children’s movies.

One might think that definitions of “terrorism” have been expanded to the point of being completely meaningless (and therefore incredibly dangerous).

But if you’re confused about this “Green Scare,” and all the “eco-terrorist” scare-mongering, have no fear. Ladies and gentleman, I present to you the eloquent, the passionate, Rep. Frank Niceley defining “eco-terrorism” for the Tennessee General Assembly:

“First let me try to explain eco-terrorism. I’m surprised that you haven’t heard of it. Take one group, the PETA group. According to the FBI they’re the number one domestic terrorist group in America. They are considered eco-terrorists.

Eco-terrorists are, uh, I guess left-wing eco-greenies. They don’t have leader. They’re a leaderless terrorism group. They just kind of spring up sporadically. They do things like, uh, turn research animals out on the interstate, turn farm animals loose from semis in the middle of town. They drive spikes in logs going that go into the saw mill so that it will knock the teeth out of the saw mills. They put sugar in uh, in firefighting equipment in the, in the national forest, and, and just uh, it’s a different type of terrorism. They don’t have Osama bin Laden leadin’ ‘em…”

PETA isn’t listed as a “terrorist” organization, and activists don’t release animals on the interstate or the middle of town, but facts don’t mean much in this “War on Terrorism.” Niceley (previously featured here on GNR defending a drunk-driving colleague) was speaking in favor of his bill, HB 3307, the “Tennessee Ecoterrorism Act.” It never made it out of committee, but its language appeared in the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a federal law that I have written extensively about, and testified about before Congress. Similar legislation is also under consideration in California right, as part of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act.

A key difference between this state-level law and the AETA is that it would have created sex-offender style registry within the Tennessee bureau of investigation for “eco-terrorists.” Scary stuff, especially when cops have taken DNA samples of environmental activists. Similar “eco-terrorist” databases were in prior, failed versions of the AETA.

But wait, it gets even better. The bill also defines “person” as meaning “corporation.” And it prohibits “hazardous or injurious devices” including “guns attached to trip wires or other triggering mechanisms.” (Apparently, Niceley would like us to believe that the “eco-terrorists” have been trained by Chuck Norris. However, nothing like this has ever happened).

Total price tag that would have been delivered to Tennessee taxpayers for this gem of a law: $200,000 in recurring costs, $157,800 in one-time costs, and $29,600 in increased incarceration costs.

I remember this bill from a few years ago, and I was so happy to see this clip posted on YouTube recently. [Tom Guleff posted it and added some barnyard noises and graphics. But if you're doubting that this actually happened, I tracked down the original courtesy of the Tennessee General Assembly archives. The "eco-terrorism" bill is up at about 25:50.]

A few of my favorite Niceley quotes:

• On news sources:
  

  “Most of what I’ve heard about the Unabomber has been on the news and on the Rush Limbaugh.”

• On PETA:
  

  “They do a lot of things. The most hideous thing they’ve done is stretch piano wire over jumps, so when fox hunters jump their horse over it catches the rider about the neck. They do all kinds, PETA’s done all kinds, they’re the ones the FBI calls the number one domestic terrorist group in America.”

  (To be clear, that has never been done by PETA or any animal activist.)

• On the growing “eco-terrorist” threat in Tennessee:
  

  “Luckily we don’t have as many wackos yet. But we’re gaining.”

What’s your favorite line from the video?

In light of the recent legislation pending in California that would prohibit the publication of public information on websites–but only websites run by animal rights activists–I have a modest proposal that I think will go a long way to making the country even safer:

An amendment to the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, AB2296

Whereas the AB 2296 states that “no person, business, or association shall knowingly publicly post or publicly display on the Internet a home address, home telephone number, or image of any employee of an animal enterprise or other individuals residing at the same home address of the employee of an animal enterprise.”

Whereas the bill specifically notes, “‘Publicly post’ or ‘publicly display’ means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the general public.”

Whereas the bill spells out harsh penalties for animal rights activists who republish publicly-available information.

Whereas “eco-terrorism” is the number one domestic terrorism threat, and there should be no limit to the roll back of civil liberties in the name of fighting the War on Terrorism.

Whereas the great state of Oregon has gone so far as to argue that state laws, although public information, can’t be republished.

Be it resolved that animal rights activists are no longer allowed to own the Yellow Pages, or any variation thereof.

And further, be it resolved that animal rights activists are not allowed to use the World Wide Interweb, also known as a series of tubes, including but not limited to the Intertron search utility known as “Google,” without the supervision of law enforcement or a court-appointed corporate surrogate.

NOTE: There is a hearing on this legislation on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 in the Judiciary Committee, Room 4202, at 8 a.m. or perhaps later (you can view what else is on the schedule here).

California has been a hotbed of both legal and illegal activity in the name of animal rights lately.
The largest beef recall in history began here, after an undercover investigation by an animal welfare group. Meanwhile, California universities have been the site of a protracted battle between animal experimenters and underground activists using threats and property destruction. And last week, the secretary of state announced that a proposal to eliminate some of the cruelest confinements in animal agriculture will go before voters in November.

These are disparate tactics, yet they all threaten animal businesses.

Enter Gene Mullin, a member of the California State Assembly and a Democrat, who has introduced AB 2296, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, to stifle the First Amendment rights of animal advocates. The law would prohibit the posting of publicly available information on activist websites, restrict access to public meetings, and require heavy-handed penalties for non-violent civil disobedience.

All in the name of fighting “terrorism.”

Background

In November, 2006, Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a sweeping, overly broad law that was, ostensibly, introduced to target underground activists like the Animal Liberation Front. It was pushed through Congress, with little discussion or debate, by a coalition of corporations and industry groups including the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Pfizer and the Fur Commission. It wraps up a range of activity—from non-violent civil disobedience to property destruction—as “terrorism” if it targets an “animal enterprise,” and, most dangerous of all, it has made many activists fearful of continuing their work because they could be labeled a “terrorist.”

The government has used the passage of the AETA to cozy up with these “animal enterprises” even more. In March, 2007, Ricardo Solano Jr., a lead attorney in the “animal enterprise terrorism” case of the SHAC 7, gave a keynote speech at the Animal Agriculture Alliance’s Stakeholders Summit. According to Dairy Herd Management Magazine, he told the executives present: “The fact of the matter is that there are extremist individuals and groups that will go through great lengths to put you out of business. The recent passage of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act sends a clear signal to animal-rights extremists that if their activities cross the line, the federal government will not stand idly by.”

Nevertheless, the new law hasn’t been used. You might remember that, after the passage of the federal Animal Enterprise Protection Act in 1992, corporations immediately began pushing for more legislation, and more power. They got what they wanted with the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. But now that victory is simply being used as a political springboard for even more legislation, providing even more power.

Key provisions in the California bill:

Prohibits the publication of publicly-available information

The most significant section of the bill says that “no person, business, or association shall knowingly publicly post or publicly display on the Internet a home address, home telephone number, or image of any employee of an animal enterprise or other individuals residing at the same home address of the employee of an animal enterprise” if the posting is intended to do one of a few things.

It must either be intended to:

“Incite a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm to the person identified in the posting or display, or to a coresident of that person, where the third person is likely to commit this harm.”

Or

“Threaten the person identified in the posting or display, or a coresident of that person, in a manner that places the person identified or the coresident in objectively reasonable fear for his or her personal safety.”

Here, lawmakers are trying to push the limits of what a long history of First Amendment law has established. They’re singling out a group of people solely based on their political beliefs, and restricting their speech because of those beliefs. If someone posted information about an executive at Wal-Mart, because of a labor dispute, that wouldn’t be prohibited. Or, perhaps a better comparison would be someone who posts information about an abortion doctor (a situation which, unlike animal rights campaigns, has led to murder).

Beyond that, though, these clauses are so ambiguous as to be meaningless. Or, in the hands of an ambitious prosecutor, so ambiguous as to be quite dangerous.

The biggest problem here is the use of amorphous term “reasonable fear.” The word “eco-terrorism” is batted around recklessly by industry groups, in a scare-mongering campaign that has included full-page ads in major newspapers and even stooping so low as to call a children’s movie “soft-core eco-terrorism for kids.” They are doing everything they can to create this fear through scare mongering: that’s the point. In light of this political climate, it’s impossible to discuss “reasonable fear,” because industry groups are throwing all their weight into making the unreasonable seem reasonable—into making the public afraid of non-violent activists, so they can push a political agenda.

Furthermore, lawmakers are twisting and redefining the idea of “incitement.” Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) established that incitement is more than mere advocacy, and it is more than simply providing information: it must tend to cause “imminent lawless action.” That’s a bit of a stretch with the Internet, unless someone were to post the information and then send a fiery email to someone saying, “Go do something illegal!” The reality, though, is that this hasn’t happened. Lawmakers are targeted websites for merely posting publicly available information in a political context.

Restricts access to public meetings

The bill “imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies” on the grounds that, among other points, some researchers have been the targets of property destruction and threats.

The bill also notes, as a justification for this restriction, that “The information used to target the victims of these crimes often is obtained by making a request for public records from a government agency.” It’s quite curious that lawmakers can make such a bold statement about the methods of underground activists responsible for the illegal actions in California, considering they have not been caught.

Catching the underground activists, though, is only part of the intention. More importantly, researchers and corporations could use this fear mongering to restrict publicly available information that is used by a wide variety of legal, mainstream groups in their campaigns.

Creates new crimes and disproportionate penalties

The bill spells out civil remedies for individuals whose public information is posted publicly, including suing for “damages to that individual in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages, but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000).”

Lawmakers also went to great lengths to spin standard court procedures into fear-mongering tactics. For instance, the bill spells out that courts “shall take all action reasonably required” to protect animal enterprise employees, including restraining orders and bans on photography. And in court, employees may use a pseudonym out of fear of animal rights advocates. These are all tools available to the court in extreme situations, but lawmakers have gone out of their way to emphasize them here seemingly to enforce the “terrorist threat” posed by activists.

Perhaps most disturbing, though, are the disproportionate penalties.

One of the slaughterhouse workers in Chino, Calif., whose abuse of cows led to the beef recall, pleaded guilty recently to three misdemeanors. Undercover video showed Rafael Sanchez Herrera and others trying to force sick cows into the kill chutes by stabbing a cow in the eye with a stick, dragging sick cows with forklifts and shooting high-pressure hoses into their mouths. He was sentenced to 180 days in jail and a $100 fine.

Under this legislation, someone who uses non-violent civil disobedience outside of a slaughterhouse in protest of these abusive practices could receive the same amount of jail time, and a $5,000 fine.