Comments on: “It’s Time to Stop the AETA,” Satya http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:37:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Will Potter http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/satya-aeta-editorial/comment-page-1/#comment-1177 Will Potter Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:50:02 +0000 http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/its-time-to-stop-the-aeta-satya/#comment-1177 Hi Karin. That clause is no safeguard. For instance, undercover investigators and whistleblowers may cause financial loss for a company beyond the losses related to third party reactions. Companies may argue that salaries for undercover investigators, increased internal security, and extensive employee background checks are added costs of doing business because of activists. Furthermore, notice how many times that “exemption” uses the word lawful. All activists I’ve interviewed have plenty of stories about frivolous charges and trumped up charges (”disorderly conduct” and “trespassing” seem to be two favorites of law enforcement agents who can’t get anything else to stick). At the point any of those baseless, non-violent charges are added into the equation (like if an investigator sneaks onto corporate property to film animal abuse) the already-weak protections of that exemption don’t even apply. Hi Karin. That clause is no safeguard. For instance, undercover investigators and whistleblowers may cause financial loss for a company beyond the losses related to third party reactions. Companies may argue that salaries for undercover investigators, increased internal security, and extensive employee background checks are added costs of doing business because of activists.

Furthermore, notice how many times that “exemption” uses the word lawful. All activists I’ve interviewed have plenty of stories about frivolous charges and trumped up charges (”disorderly conduct” and “trespassing” seem to be two favorites of law enforcement agents who can’t get anything else to stick). At the point any of those baseless, non-violent charges are added into the equation (like if an investigator sneaks onto corporate property to film animal abuse) the already-weak protections of that exemption don’t even apply.

]]> By: Karin http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/satya-aeta-editorial/comment-page-1/#comment-1173 Karin Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:29:43 +0000 http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/its-time-to-stop-the-aeta-satya/#comment-1173 First, I contacted my house rep. today urging him to reject AETA. I hope many others do the same. Second, I'm confused about the meaning of the following statement from AETA (which I see quoted everywhere): "economic damage...does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise." What is meant by a "reaction to the disclosure of information"? Also, can you clarify how, as the ACLU claims, the First Amendment covers much more than a reaction to a disclosure? Thanks! First, I contacted my house rep. today urging him to reject AETA. I hope many others do the same.

Second, I’m confused about the meaning of the following statement from AETA (which I see quoted everywhere):

“economic damage…does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise.”

What is meant by a “reaction to the disclosure of information”? Also, can you clarify how, as the ACLU claims, the First Amendment covers much more than a reaction to a disclosure?

Thanks!

]]>