State-Level “Eco-Terror” Legislation Pushed by Corporate Front Groups

by Will Potter on December 15, 2009

in Terrorism Legislation

loss_of_profits_not_terrorismThe 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.

Tagged as: , , , ,

  • http://www.medivisas.com/ uk visa

    It’s good to see the National Lawyers Guild making a stand against Corporate America and the politicians owned by the corporations.
    But it’s frightening to watch as America turns itself from a democracy into a country where it’s a terrorist crime to not support corporations and all that they do.
    I’m reminded of the argument that corporations are clinical psychopaths – http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0120-03.htm.

  • Joe

    Will, I have read the Ca. bill and it has nothing to do with protecting corporations, it protects researchers and their families. What is wrong with that?

  • Steve

    @Joe
    “Will, I have read the Ca. bill and it has nothing to do with protecting corporations, it protects researchers and their families. What is wrong with that?”

    One of the guiding principles of jurisprudence is that “The law is for all” When one group, in this case the animal abusers, is favoured above others we enter into the same realms as apartheid, state/societally sanctioned slavery, and all other forms of discrimination and oppression. Such is indefensible.

    Leaving aside that these so called “researchers” are nothing less than a front for big pharma and big ag; the Corporations that have bought our government in the rapacious quest for profit above all else.

  • Joe

    Ok then to be totally fair and even all AR “activist” should have their names, address, phone number as well as their families information posted . Steve would you like to be first?

  • Steve

    That’s right Joe, change the subject when your argument fails. You’re a shill, and a poor one at that, but keep the laughs coming.

  • Lin

    Joe:
    I’m pretty sure you and the rest of your FBI buddies already have all of that information.
    Thanks for stopping by though.

  • Joe

    Steve, how did I change the the subject? You want all researchers personal info made public because somehow that seems fair to you, but at the same time you all AR “activist” personal kept away from those they may harm.

  • http://www.greenisthenewred.com Will Potter

    Joe: What animal rights group is calling for the public information of activists to be withheld from the public?

  • Steve

    @Joe

    A total misrepresentation, indeed outright lie. I/We do not WANT researchers personal information, however if such information is available (we found it, so it must have been available) that is their choice. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that “laws” which allow for unequal consideration under the law are arguably unconstitutional. The two subjects have nothing to do with each other except in your fevered imagination.

  • http://VegWorcester.com dw

    Hey! I recognize that sign. :)

  • Apocalyptopia

    Then you must be a terrorist!!! OMG!!!!!11 :P

  • Apocalyptopia

    Post more. It sucks having to wait over 2 weeks to read something new on this site.

  • veganlove

    That photograph says it ALL. AMEN!

  • Pingback: The complex environment of animal protection « Travels with Shiloh

Previous post:

Next post: