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.

Jordan Halliday and a supporter outside the courthouse.

Utah animal rights activist Jordan Halliday has begun a 10-month prison sentence for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury about his political beliefs and political associations. It is believed to be the first time in two decades, and only the third time in U.S. history, that someone has been imprisoned for criminal contempt of court after already serving prison time for civil contempt–all because of his principled stand against what activists call a political witch hunt.

The Utah grand jury was convened in 2009 to investigate the release of mink from Utah fur farms by the Animal Liberation Front. Halliday refused to cooperate because grand juries have historically been used against social movements (as they are now being used against antiwar activists in the Midwest) in fishing expeditions.

When you walk into a grand jury, you check your rights at the door. You have to answer questions about your politics and your friends. You don’t have the right to remain silent. If you refuse to cooperate and “name names,” you can be sent to jail. That’s what happened to Halliday.

But the story of how and why he was targeted gets even more surprising.

Corporate Leads

According to a government memo, “there is evidence that the defendant [Halliday] notified news sources of the McMullin mink farm attack on the day of the attack, and even before police officers knew of the significance of the crime.” This would seem like a good reason to question him.

However, it’s a lie.

FBI file shows emails from Fur Commission.

On August 20, 2009, someone submitted an anonymous message to KUTV.com about the fur farm raid. The only details provided on the contact form were a first name of “Jordan” and an email “jo~dan@aol.com.” The message said the Animal Liberation Front released 300 mink from McMullin mink farm and that they “look a lot happier.”

KUTV forwarded the message to Lindsey McMullin, the farm owner. McMullin forwarded the email to Teresa Platt of Fur Commission USA, an industry group. Platt forwarded the email to the FBI. [Here is a section of the FBI file with the emails.]

This is the basis for the FBI’s obsession with Halliday: an anonymous email attributed to “Jordan” that they received from a corporate front group, and the fact that Jordan Halliday is the only animal rights “Jordan” they could find (the other Jordans they spoke with were not activists, prosecutors said).

Refusal to Cooperate

Halliday maintains he has no knowledge of these crimes, and points out that anyone claiming responsibility for a crime would not use their real name (plus jo~dan@aol.com is not even a valid address). Instead, he argues that he has been targeted because of his protesting and writing, and that this is a broader attack on the animal rights and environmental movements.

Halliday’s attorney said in a memorandum:

… Jordan has resisted questioning involving his membership status and/or leadership position in various organizations of political and social nature involved in advocating for animal protections. He has been questioned about whether he organized a rally in front of the federal courthouse, and if he knows who did organize such rally, or if it were an organization to which he belongs that planned the rally. He has been asked about his family members, and whether one is married to an animal rights activist…[emphasis added]

1-2-3-4-FIFTH

Halliday answered either “no comment” or invoked the Fifth Amendment to all questions asked of him during his grand jury appearances. He answered no questions. His refusal to cooperate with the grand jury resulted in him spending 104 days in jail for civil contempt of court. Before being released, he was informed that the government had indicted him again on the same case, this time on criminal contempt charges.

Upon learning that prosecutors sought a 2 year prison sentence, Halliday pleaded guilty to refusing to answer questions at a federal grand jury. He was sentenced to 10 months in prison. To put this in perspective, William James Viehl and Alex Jason Hall were convicted of two counts of “animal enterprise terrorism” under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for the Matthews mink farm raid, and sentenced to 21 and 24 months.

Why was Halliday treated so harshly?

One reason is that his “refusal to testify over a long period and his statements about ‘resisting’ the grand jury make his conduct more serious than simply failing to appear as a material witness.”

An example of this “disdainful view of grand juries” is a March 4, 2009 text message sent by Halliday after appearing before the grand jury. According to the government’s sentencing memo, he wrote:

Well, after my dave chapelle … I plead the 5th routine today. I was making some fo [sic] the gj laugh. I was sayin’ like “1-2- 3-4-5th!”. And they asked to see and they asked to see and they asked her to grant me more time as well, because they needed more time. The prosecutor was pissed as fuck.

Prosecutors note that “Dave Chappelle is a popular comedian who performs a comic routine that Halliday claims in the text message to have been mimicking before the grand jury. (Submission Exhibit No. 6.) In context, the video clip illustrates Halliday’s intention to mock the grand jury process…”

Prosecutors also say there were protestors outside the courthouse, and that Halliday said on websites and in the press that he had no intention of cooperating with a grand jury witch hunt. His refusal to cower in fear, his refusal to acquiesce to the government’s bullying, and his willingness to mock those the government were spun by the government as evidence of the need for a higher sentence.

“Stardom”

It’s telling that prosecutors bluntly describe this lack of fear as a threat to the entire grand jury system. “In some sense, the defendant’s contempt has brought a certain stardom within the counterculture animal rights extremist movement,” the sentencing memo says. He has tweeted, blogged, and interviewed about his experiences. He has supporters who have opened Facebook and Tumblr accounts, and protested outside the courthouse.

It is imperative, prosecutors said, that the “sentence defendant receives must not only deter his future criminal conduct, but also send the appropriate message to ensure that, as an unintended consequence of a lenient sentence, the defendant’s supporters are not emboldened to follow the defendant’s contemptuous ways.”

The FBI, the fur industry, and prosecutors are openly trying to send a message.

But what message are you hearing?

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.”

A journalist with ArteTv’s Global Mag, a television program that airs in France and Germany, visited the U.S. to report on the labeling of environmentalists as “eco-terrorists.” She came to the book release event in Washington, DC, and I was also able to put her in touch with Andy Stepanian of the SHAC 7, Daniel McGowan‘s wife, Jenny, and Alexis Agathocleous of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Much of the program is about secretive prisons for domestic terrorists called Communications Management Units. You can view the video below (sorry, I don’t have subtitles!). It’s a shame that U.S. journalists haven’t been covering this issue as well as international outlets.

The new issue of VegNews has an article I wrote about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, and the AETA4, called “The Price of Free Speech.” I hope you’ll take a look and let me know what you think! VegNews is widely available at bookstores and places like Whole Foods, and I think it’s wonderful that the editors are sharing an important political issue like this with VegNews readers.

However, as I’m sure you’ve heard, there’s a bit of a scandal about VegNews printing photoshopped, stock photos of non-vegan food. But “VegNews Gate” doesn’t stop there. Instead of using a photo of me with the article, they used this stock photograph instead. Shockingly, this has gone on for months and nobody noticed.

PS: Every issue, VegNews asks its contributing authors a question. This time it was, “What is your ideal honeymoon vacation?” Amidst all the very serious and romantic replies, on p17, is my equally heartfelt answer: “Austin, Texas: True romance is taco carts and tequila.”

Hey DC folks: I’ll be speaking at Georgetown Law School on Thursday, November 4 at 6pm. Other speakers include Shahid Buttar of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and Odette Wilkins of the Equal Justice Alliance. I’ll be talking about how the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is part of a broader, coordinated campaign to chill free speech in the name of national security and fighting “terrorism.” Details in this flier. Hope to seem some of you there!

PS: VEGAN PIZZA. Just sayin’.

Utah animal rights activists Jordan Halliday was sentenced to an additional 10 months in prison today for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury.

The grand jury was convened to investigate the release of mink from Utah fur farms by the Animal Liberation Front. Halliday refused to cooperate because grand juries have repeatedly been used by the government as a tool for fishing expeditions, forcing activists to testify about their political beliefs and political associations.

Grand juries have historically been used against social movements (and are also being used against antiwar activists in the Midwest). They’re a tool to harass and intimidate activists, and foster fear and distrust among activist communities. If you don’t know about grand juries, I think this clip from the Rockford Files is a good start.

Halliday will be appealing the sentence. He is scheduled to report to prison in January.

I’ve written about the community support Halliday has received, and that will need to continue as this moves forward. This video clip is a song he wrote in thanks to supporters. An excerpt:

I’ll read a lot of books.
I’ll get really smart.
I’ll bulk up.
And tear those books apart.
(I’m just kidding)

Visit Jordan Halliday’s support website.

You want to know who is voting today? Here’s an example: these Tea Partiers think that Missouri’s Proposition B, which would regulate the state’s puppy mills, is part of the Humane Society’s “radical agenda.”

This Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act includes “radical” proposals such as requiring breeders to feed their animals daily and regularly.

A pro-breeder group called the Alliance For Truth is leading the fight against the legislation. Anita Andrews told TPM that the Humane Society is extremist because they think “humans and animals are on the same level, ownership of an animal is slavery,” and that “animals should have attorney representation.”

Alliance for Truth has the backing of local Tea Partiers and Joe the Plumber (apparently he’s still around?).

If you read this site regularly, you probably know I’m about the last person to put much faith in elected officials. I’ve written frequently on this site about how Obama has advocated national security policies that are in some ways worse than Bush, and how politicians lied about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

Here’s the thing:

We have far too much work to do in fighting the Green Scare, and too few people doing it. If the people who believe this kind of nonsense are elected, it will lead to more legislation, more arrests, more media campaigns.

These folks, the ones who think that groups like the Humane Society are “radical” and “extremist,” they’re voting.

Regardless of how you vote today, or whether you vote at all, please think about that.

UPDATE: Prop B narrowly passed.

This video is from the plenary session at the 2010 national animal rights conference in Washington, DC. I talk about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, secretive political prisons called Communications Management Units, and how we must respond.

Thanks to Mark Hand of Press Action for posting the footage.