Fur Shop Owners Rebuked in Lawsuit Against Protestors

With all the “terrorism enhancement” news this week, I missed some good news (I know, it’s shocking, GNR can be full of so much “eco-terrorism” gloom and doom). But on Tuesday a federal judge defended the rights of activists to protest despite the “terrorism” rhetoric of the fur salon’s owners.

Schumacher Furs has been the target of weekly protests by animal rights activists, and the owners have gone on the offensive: they’ve refused to mediate with the activists, calling them a “terrorist organization,” and have called on the government to use the newly-passed Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. (Here’s a more detailed account of this saga.)

From The Oregonian:

U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman wrote that concerns about jurisdiction and enforcement caused him to reject a motion by Schumacher Furs & Outerwear to impose limits on the protest rights of 20 unnamed protesters.

In a two-page order, Mosman wrote that he could not put restrictions on the free speech rights of the group “in order to prevent some from exceeding the bounds of protected activity.”

Related posts:

  • danielle
    You really need to read the judge's order before declaring it some sort of victory. It was not. The order allowed for anyone in the future showing up to a protest - even if it was their first time, and their name is not known, to be served with the injunction. And that is exactly what happened. Every protester at the next protest - and even 2 hitchhikers from another state who were not protesters but were sitting near them - was served a restraining order. The "janes and johns" - the unnamed protesters - were in fact served and restricted. They just had to show up to get the order, rather than the judge issuing it immediately from the bench. Look at the language of the order and you'll see that it allows for this. The Oregonian was somewhat misleading, and people just took the headline as the gospel.
blog comments powered by Disqus