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.

I’ll be heading out to California soon for a few speaking events in Los Angeles as part of the book tour! The first stop is at Diesel Books, and then on to the national Animal Rights Conference.

Why both? Well, at Diesel Books I’ll be able to go into detail about these issues, and have plenty of time for discussion. The book encompasses so many different topics that it’s nice to have the time to delve into specific points that folks are interested in. The bookstore events so far have been fantastic (and as a warning, they’ve all also been standing-room only, so you might want to get there early).

At the Animal Rights Conference, I’ll be speaking on multiple panel discussions. Topics include updates on key court cases, working with media, journalism, and more. I’m really looking forward to this as well, because of the very focused nature of the discussion. I’ll also be tabling at the conference from Friday to Sunday — and I’ll have books, Matt Gauck signed posters, and shirts, so stop by and say hello!

Details below. See you in L.A.! 

 

Diesel Books

Will Potter discusses and signs “Green is the New Red”

Thursday, July 21, 2011

7 p.m.

(NOTE: It is at the Brentwood location, Brentwood Country Mart on 26th at San Vicente)

Please RSVP on Facebook!

Animal Rights Conference

I’ll be speaking on multiple panels and a plenary session. See the full schedule of incredible speakers here.

Friday, July 22  to Sunday, July 24

The Westin LAX - 5400 West Century Boulevard

Please RSVP on Facebook!

A U.S. District Court has thrown out the indictment of four animal rights activists who were charged with violating the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, because the government did not clearly explain what, exactly, the protesters did.

When Joseph Buddenberg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope and Adriana Stumpo were arrested in 2009, prosecutors said little other than that the group allegedly chalked slogans on the sidewalk, distributed fliers and attended protests. Later, when they were officially indicted, the government was still tight-lipped about how their non-violent, above-ground protests amounted to “terrorism.”

In response, the Center for Constitutional Rights and attorney Matthew Strugar led an effort to have the indictments dismissed. In short, they argued that the charges should be dropped because they seem to involve only protected First Amendment speech, but that in order to make that argument the defendants’ speech must be clearly identified.

Here’s an excerpt from Judge Ronald M. Whyte’s ruling:

In order for an indictment to fulfill its constitutional purposes, it must allege facts that sufficiently inform each defendant of what it is that he or she is alleged to have done that constitutes a crime. This is particularly important where the species of behavior in question spans a wide spectrum from criminal conduct to constitutionally protected political protest. While “true threats” enjoy no First Amendment protection, picketing and political protest are at the very core of what is protected by the First Amendment. Where the defendants’ conduct falls on this spectrum in this case will very likely ultimately be decided by a jury. Before this case proceeds to a jury, however, the defendants are entitled to a more specific indictment setting forth their conduct alleged to be criminal. [emphasis added]

As background, a fierce campaign has been being waged in California against animal research at the University of California system. There has been a wide range of both legal and illegal tactics. Illegal tactics have included the destruction of UC vans, and an incendiary device was left at the home of a UC researcher.

The FBI and local law enforcement haven’t been able to catch the people responsible, though. They’ve only cracked down on the above-ground activists, like the AETA 4, who protest and create fliers.

The previous version of the law was used to convict the SHAC 7 for running a controversial website that posted news of both legal and illegal actions. This case, the first use of the new Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, was clearly an attempt to use this sweeping legislation even more broadly against First Amendment activity. This ruling sternly rebukes the government’s attempt to take activists to trial for “terrorism” without even explaining what they have done.

To be clear, though, this case is not over. The government can still re-indict the defendants with an amended bill of particulars that clearly outlines their alleged actions.

This is a victory worth celebrating, and it should also be inspiration for renewed organizing. Corporations and the politicians who represent them have been pushing this “eco-terrorism” and “animal enterprise terrorism” legislation for years, and they will not sit quietly as the flagship case of their pet scare-mongering law is tossed aside.

If prosecutors choose to re-indict, it should be at their own peril; the animal rights and environmental movements must be ready to respond even more loudly, more forcefully, that activism is not terrorism.

Americans accused of being involved with terrorist organizations, even if they have never been convicted of a crime, could have their citizenship revoked under a bipartisan bill that has been introduced in Congress.

The “Terrorist Expatriation Act” was introduced this week by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Scott Brown (R-MA), along with Congressmen Jason Altmire (D-PA) and Charlie Dent (R-PA). The bill was introduced in the wake of the Times Square bomber media frenzy. So far the Obama administration has remained silent, but the bill has some bipartisan support.

This bill would direct the State Department, at its own discretion, to determine if someone is involved with or working with a terrorist organization (as identified in the State Department’s list of designated terrorist groups).

Those accused would still have the right to contest the designation, but in an administrative hearing. If they lose, they would be stripped of their citizenship, even if they have not been convicted of any crime. Once stripped of citizenship, some legal experts have said suspects could be locked in military prisons indefinitely, or face military tribunals where they have fewer legal protections.

Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor of law at American University, told the Boston Globe that this bill harkens back to the darkest periods of U.S. history:

In 1952, at the height of the McCarthy era, Congress revamped the statute and added new provisions aimed at communists, allowing the removal of citizenship for anyone guilty of treason or advocating the nation’s violent overthrow…

“The bill is so broad that it would allow the government to strip citizenship from someone who never committed a hostile act against the United States,’’ said Vladeck. He said providing material support to terrorists could be interpreted as broadly as preparing Hamas or Hezbollah to advocate before the United Nations.

In an oped in the Washington Post, David Cole makes a solid case of why the bill is dead in the water, describing it as a proposal “so flawed it can be explained only as pure political grandstanding.”

I hope he is right. Personally, though, I am beyond the point of relying on logic and no-they-could-never-get-away-with-that assurances. Politicians are getting away with it, and they are growing more and more bold.

This bill needs to be placed in the context of the simultaneous, sweeping crackdown in the name of fighting “domestic terrorism.”

Legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act singles out animal rights activists for harsher penalties if they harm corporate profits. Activists in California are being charged under the AETA for chalking slogans on sidewalks and wearing masks at protests. Meanwhile, the government has proposed making the secretive political prisons, called Communications Management Units, permanent.

This expatriation bill is dangerous enough on its own: it places far too much unchecked power in the hands of the government to make inherently subjective, political determinations of what is a terrorist organization and what constitutes support. When examined in the broader context of the attack on political activists as terrorists, the bill is even more chilling.

Supporters of these efforts all defend their proposals in the same way. It doesn’t matter if it’s this expatriation bill, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, Guantanamo, military tribunals, extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping… they all reassure the American people that “You have nothing to worry about. This will just affect the bad guys, the terrorists.”

It’s time we stop believing them.

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.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has been classified as as a “terrorist threat” in a document created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The USDA created a new “APHIS Facility Security Profile” form to send to animal experimentation facilities. Recipients were asked to answer about their experiences, and return the form to the government so the USDA can better meet their needs. [Update: After this article was posted, the USDA took down the form. Here is a link to a pdf of the APHIS form.]

In one section of the form, on p4, item #2 B and C, PETA is listed as a “domestic special interest terrorist”:

B. Terrorist Threat. What terrorist activities have occurred in or around your building/facility in the past 5 years (documented cases)? Please check all that apply.

[ ] Attack from international terrorists
[ ] Attack from domestic special interest terrorists
-[ ] Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
-[ ] Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
-[ ] People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
-[ ] Animal Defense League (ADL)
-[ ] Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)
-[ ] Formal hate group(s) (please specify):
-[ ] Other (please specify): ____________________
[ ] Cyber Attack from a known or unknown source.

I have written extensively on this site about how the ELF and ALF have become the number one domestic terrorism threat, even though they have targeted property and not people. And Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty activists were convicted on “terrorism” charges for running a website that vocally supported the actions of those groups. The listing of PETA and the Animal Defense League is something else entirely.

PETA is perhaps the most recognized organization in the animal rights movement. They are known for their undercover investigations, and their use of celebrities and outlandish media stunts to draw attention to factory farming, fur, circuses and animal experimentation.

Regardless of how you feel about PETA and their tactics, they are a lawful, above-ground, national non-profit.

So why in another section of the USDA form, are they listed as a possible answer under “Greatest Threat or Danger. What do you consider the greatest source of danger to your organization and/or fellow workers?”

Because they expose what goes on behind closed doors.

Justin Goodman, research associate supervisor for PETA, had a fantastic oped in the Sacramento Bee about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the misuses of the “terrorism” label against non-violent activists. In California, four activists are facing terrorism charges for protesting at individuals homes and allegedly creating fliers with names and addresses on them.

From Goodman’s oped:

This should give all Americans pause. People who engage in nonviolent protests and civil disobedience are sitting in jail cells, stigmatized by one of the most politically charged and discrediting labels of our time, while people who wake up every morning and go to jobs in which they torment and kill animals in laboratories continue to enjoy their freedom, paychecks, social lives and families.

Animal industries are quite open about their desire to use terrorism laws to keep their practices out of the public spotlight. I recently posted about the Animal Agriculture Alliance calling for federal prosecution of undercover investigators. It’s not because the investigators are violent. It is because they pose an even greater threat: educating the public.

As Goodman wrote: “To shield them from public opinion and discussion and to protect them from peaceful and heretofore lawful pickets by locking up those who dare to challenge the suffering that occurs inside laboratories is an attack on every American’s right of protest.”

Three animal rights activists were shot with brass pellets during a recent protest against puppy mills in Santa Monica, California. According to local news outlets, the police are investigating the shootings as an assault with a deadly weapon.

About 20 activists were protesting Aquarium & Pet Center in Santa Monica, which they say sells dogs bred in puppy mills in inhumane conditions.

Carole Raphaelle Davis, the West Coast director of the Companion Animal Protection Society, said store employees have threatened the protesters and were seen laughing after three activists were hit.

The shooting resulted in minor injuries, including welts.

“It’s shocking to think that people would try to intimidate people or cause them harm simply because they expressed their views,” said WeHo council member Jeffrey Prang, who has been working with the group to write a municipal ban on the re-selling of any pets except bred or rescued animals in West Hollywood.

The incident is disturbing enough on its own, but it needs to be put in a broader context. The animal rights and environmental movements are labeled the “number one domestic terrorism threat,” according to the FBI. Some elements of those movements have engaged in property destruction, economic sabotage and arson. In the history of the U.S. animal rights movement, though, not one person has ever been targeted with physical violence and no one has been shot.

If an animal rights activist had committed a crime like this, against an animal researcher for instance, they would undoubtedly be prosecuted as a “terrorists” under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

In fact, the government’s threshold for what constitutes “terrorism” is much, much lower when it comes to the conduct of animal rights and environmental activists. Right now, four animal rights activists in California are facing charges under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for chanting and chalking slogans on the sidewalk. They’re being labeled “terrorists.”

Incidents like this should be it abundantly clear that there are two systems of law in this country. One is for the wealthy, the corporations, the animal research industry. If they are under attack, they can lobby for new terrorism legislation and pressure the politicians and government officials who represent them to crack down on the “terrorists.” They can carve out special crimes to protect them, and only them.

The other system of law is for everybody else. If they are under attack–through violence, not just home protests or economic sabotage–well, it’s just business as usual.

So what do you think? Will the government labeling this violent, politically-motivated crime “terrorism”?

An environmental activist has been arrested in connection with the 2006 attempted arson of homes under construction in Pasadena, California. The government says the action is connected to the Earth Liberation Front.

The FBI alleges that DNA found on cigarettes left at the scene (as part of the incendiary device) matched the DNA of Stephen James Murphy, 43. The FBI says Murphy’s DNA was in a state database for a previous arrest.

The Sept. 19, 2006, incident was unsuccessful, the incendiary device failed to ignite, but the next day “workers at the site could not start a tractor, where a note had been written in permanent marker that read ‘ANOTHER TRACTOR DECOMMISSIONED BY THE E.L.F.’”

I just talked to Murphy’s girlfriend, who said, “Steve is one of the kindest and gentlest souls I have ever met. He would never harm a fly let alone jepordize harming people, animals, or the environment. Not only was he an animal rights activists but he also did humanitarian aid and human rights work. Steve was a friend to everyone in need. Always.”

I’ll keep you posted as more comes out about this case and Stephen Murphy. But here’s something to think about: this is a three-year-old crime that wasn’t successful, didn’t harm anyone, and only involved some vandalism to a tractor. One tractor. And this guy has been extradicted from Texas, and the FBI and prosecutors are moving forward with charges against him (of course it’s too early to say, but given the history of similar ELF cases, a terrorism enhancement penalty could come into play).

Meanwhile, prosecutors don’t have money for DNA testing in death penalty cases. But they can do it for a tractor.

B.J. Viehl has changed his plea to guilty and admitted releasing hundreds of mink from a Utah fur farm as part of an Animal Liberation Front raid. Viehl and his codefendant, Alex Hall, were charged under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

He now faces up to 5 years in prison.

Alex Hall is still taking his case to trial. Viehl’s supporters put up a message from him on his MySpace page saying that Viehl has not agreed to cooperate, in any way, with prosecutors. Here is his part of his explanation of his decision:

Utah is a very conservative and religiously controlled state, and cases like mine are almost always guilty until proven innocent. Having a politically and religiously biased jury deciding my fate will not be of my best interest. The change of plea hearing will be on September 2nd, 2009. and will basically consist of me admitting guilt and accepting responsibility. This, however, WILL NOT affect Alex negatively in any way. What ever Alex chooses to do with his case, he will have my love and respect.

Meanwhile, the case of another group of activists charged with “animal enterprise terrorism” is moving forward in California. The “AETA 4″–and Alex Hall, in Utah–need your support as they move forward with their legal defense.