The recent article about how the FBI recommended prosecuting video investigators as terrorists went viral, thanks to you all! It’s pretty amazing — more than 16,000 people shared the story on Facebook, and more than 100,000 unique visitors have viewed it on this website. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (and the Center for Constitutional Rights lawsuit against it is being talked about on many, many websites and forums. So thank you all for sharing this!

One of the best articles I’ve seen is by Dean Kuipers of the Los Angeles Times. Here’s an excerpt:

The documents, which were first published on Will Potter’s website, Green Is the New Red, were issued by the Joint Terrorism Task Force in 2003 in response to an article in an animal rights publication in which Shapiro and two other activists (whose names were redacted from the document), openly claimed responsibility for shooting video and taking animals from a farm…

Potter, who has looked into these state laws in more detail, points out, “There’s no shortage of laws that could be used to prosecute someone who is trespassing or someone who is vandalizing property in the process of an investigation. But these new laws are specifically aimed at mainstream animal rights and environmental groups who investigate abuse, such as the Humane Society, Mercy for Animals and PETA.”

The GreenIsTheNewRed.com article has gotten picked up by conservative websites like Little Green Footballs, liberal sites like Alternet, and everything in between. Readers have overwhelmingly been outraged by this misuse of “terrorism” legislation.

Big Ag, however, feels differently.

Dan Murphy is a public relations consultant for the meat and dairy industries, and a long-time supporter of “eco-terror” legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. In a column for Dairy Herd, he says the FBI is completely justified in targeted non-violent undercover investigators as terrorists. He goes so far as to compare the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act to hate crimes legislation targeting the KKK:

It’s no different from passing laws authorizing special punishment for so-called “hate crimes.” It’s always been possible to punish those who burn crosses, deface houses or otherwise harass people on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation. But often, the small fines and minimal jail terms prescribed by trespassing and property damage statutes don’t fit the egregious nature of the offenses. Thus, it’s necessary to identify special circumstances that change what would normally be mere misdemeanors into the more serious crimes that they are.

Murphy has this backwards, of course. The “egregious nature of the offenses” in this situation are not being committed by the activists. They are being committed by corporations. Activists have repeatedly exposed systemic animal welfare violations, and are non-violently documenting these practices to force businesses to change these practices.

It speaks volumes that the meat and dairy industries consider things like this to be less egregious than having their own institutionalized cruelty exposed.

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.

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.

While I was on book tour, I stopped by the studio of KEXP in Seattle for “Mind Over Matters.” KEXP created a video of the interview, which focused on the specific tactics that corporations and industry groups have used to create the idea of “eco-terrorism.

Thanks to Mike and the folks at KEXP for having me on the show! (Video after the jump)

The Supreme Court announced today that it will not review the case of the SHAC 7, a landmark First Amendment case in which a group of animal rights activists were convicted as “terrorists” for running a controversial website.

The campaign of the SHAC 7 didn’t involve anthrax, pipe bombs, or a plot to hijack an airplane. They ran a website. On that website, they posted news about the campaign — legal actions like protests and illegal actions like stealing animals from labs — and unabashedly supported all of it.

For this they faced a slew of conspiracy charges, including conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act and commit “animal enterprise terrorism.”

The defendants lost at the trial level, and were sentenced to between one and six years in prison. Upon appeal, the Third Circuit issued a sweeping ruling. It held that SHAC’s fiery rhetoric constituted a “true threat” (even though they were never accused of destroying property, or violence, or inciting such activity) because illegal conduct has taken place in the same campaign.

To put it another way, the court held that the First Amendment rights of a group of people could be restricted based on the past actions of others.

For instance, one of the defendants, Josh Harper, gave two speeches in which he talked about the campaign, and also his personal, theoretical support for the Animal Liberation Front and “black faxing.” The appellate court noted:

Harper’s personal conduct does not cross the line of illegality; to punish him simply on the basis of his political speeches would run afoul of the constitution. However, his conduct… does provide circumstantial evidence from which a jury could have reasonably inferred that Harper was involved in a conspiracy to violate the AEPA.

The Supreme Court has denied writ of certiorari in the case, which means the case will not be heard. In short, the appeals court ruling stands, and this is the end of the line for the SHAC 7.

The chances of a case being heard by the Supreme Court are incredibly slim, of course. But I’m a bit surprised the court will not hear the SHAC 7 case. The Supreme Court recently ruled that Westboro Baptist Church (the “God Hates Fags” folks) have the right to protest military funerals. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that their conduct “is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible,” but it is protected, nonetheless.

All but one of the SHAC 7 defendants have been released from prison, so this ruling was not about prison time. It was about the precedent that this type of ruling may set, particularly in the context of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. And it was about whether that label, “terrorist,” should follow these activists for the rest of their lives.

Even if you do not agree with the SHAC campaign, or animal rights campaigns in general, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear this case has chilling implications for all activists of all social justice movements.

UPDATE: Here’s a response from Lauren Gazzola, one of the SHAC 7:

“Today has been a hard day, because I think that the Supreme Court’s denial of our cert. petition was wrong. Not just legally wrong, but morally wrong. In that sense, I’ve had many hard days over the past several years. Right now though, I’d like to tell you about one of the easiest.

A few weeks ago I gave a talk about the SHAC 7 case to a law school class. Before I got up to speak, the professor showed undercover footage from inside of HLS. It was the first time I’d seen it since getting out of prison and I broke down. When it ended, the Executive Director of the National Antivivisection Society got up to introduce me. “It’s hard to know where to start,” she began.

I was next up and still slightly shaky from having seen the footage. I had planned to begin by thanking the professor for inviting me,
thanking NAVS for sponsoring the event, and thanking the students for attending. Instead I told the class, “I know exactly where to start.

I spent three-and-a-half years of my life trying to put HLS out of business and three-and-a-half years in prison for it. Every single day was worth it and I’d do it again.” Today, I’d simply like to repeat this: I’d do it again. It was all worth it.”

Spokespersons for Sarah Palin and Tea Party groups have bristled at the suggestion that their violent rhetoric may have contributed to the recent shooting in Arizona that left six people dead and Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in critical condition. The topic is, for the most part, being treated with kid gloves in the press, and the “terrorist” label is conspicuously absent from the discussion.

However, animal rights and environmental activists have been labeled as “terrorists,” and sent to prison, for much, much less.

The murder attempt of Gabrielle Giffords needs to be put in a political context: Sarah Palin’s PAC used this map with gun targets on lawmakers, including Giffords; Palin has repeatedly used the rallying cry “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!”; Tea Partiers have carried assault rifles to political rallies; and militia members have urged followers to vandalize the offices of politicians (including Giffords), which they have done.

As I have reported here many times previously, none of this is being labeled terrorism by the government. Meanwhile, the animal rights and environmental movements are labeled the “number one domestic terrorism threat.”

To draw an even more specific comparison: the SHAC 7 were convicted of “animal enterprise terrorism” for running a website which posted the names and addresses of individuals tied to the animal testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences. They were not charged with any act of property destruction, they were charged with “conspiracy” on the grounds that they should be held accountable for the actions of others in the same movement.

To be clear, I am not arguing that Sarah Palin should be accused of terrorism. However, such a stark hypocrisy needs to be addressed.

Simply put:

If Sarah Palin cannot be held responsible for the actions of those who visit her website, neither can animal rights activists.

And if animal rights activists are terrorists for running a website listing “targets,” then Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin, who have gone much further, must be labeled terrorists as well.

UPDATE: Well, it was only a matter of time. At least one person is proposing prosecuting Palin as a terrorist and using the SHAC 7 case as justification. It’s this type of sweeping application that SHAC 7 attorneys have been warning about for years.

Scott DeMuth pleaded guilty today to a misdemeanor conspiracy charge for releasing ferrets from a Minnesota farm. As part of the deal, he will no longer be charged with conspiracy to commit “animal enterprise terrorism” in relation to a University of Iowa Animal Liberation Front raid.

DeMuth had previously resisted a grand jury fishing expedition, and been labeled an “anarchist” and “domestic terrorist” by the government. His faculty advisor at the University of Minnesota has also been harassed by the FBI.

As part of the deal, he will not be forced to cooperate with the government. He faces approximately six months in prison for the misdemeanor charge.

The plea agreement comes as DeMuth was set to begin trial Tuesday. From the start, DeMuth has maintained his innocence in relation to the University of Iowa case. Prosecutor Cliff Cronk has re-indicted DeMuth twice, in response to arguments by defense attorneys that the government’s case is thin and vindictive: the second superseding indictment added an allegation of a raid at Lakeside Ferret, in Minnesota.

The government seems to have taken whatever it can get in this case: a lesser charge in lieu of “terrorism” charges, which fell apart. The terrorism investigation of the University of Iowa ALF raid, is likely not over, however. Recent FBI raids in other states have been part of that investigation, as have visits by FBI agents to local activists.

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.

Last week a Philadelphia appellate court announced (after months of silence) that it would not revisit the conviction of animal rights activists on terrorism charges. The SHAC 7 were convicted of conspiring to commit animal enterprise terrorism by running a controversial website that posted news of both legal and illegal actions, along with personal information of people connected to the notorious animal testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences. Their campaign had brought the multinational corporation near bankruptcy.

A three-judge panel of the court had previously upheld the conviction, and the defendants had asked that the full court review it. Now, the only option is to request that the Supreme Court of the United States review the case. There has been no official word about this yet, but multiple defendants have expressed their interest and having this landmark First Amendment case heard by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the lead prosecutor who helped secure this “victory in the War on Terrorism” has– surprise, surprise– been promoted. Charles McKenna is now the head of the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness.

He was quoted a few days ago about his hopes for using new “anti-terrorism technology” in his new job.

“We are particularly interested in computer profiling, which is much more sophisticated, and quicker, than traditional racial profiling,” he said.

The targets of this new profiling technology?

“Jihad, Crips, extreme animal-rights activists, it’s all the same: people trying damage the system,” added McKenna.“We need every trick in the book to avert disaster.”

As you can see in this photo, the SHAC 7 are quite gangsta. But no reasonable person could argue that they are the “same” as violent street gangs and Islamic terrorists.

Such absurd scare-mongering rhetoric has become normal for corporations, industry groups, and the politicians who represent them. When it is adopted by government officials who are in charge of keeping us safe, though, it has frightening implications.

There are limited anti-terrorism and law enforcement resources. When people like McKenna let shameless political opportunism shape security priorities (and make no mistake, this is nothing but political opportunism–he has already been rewarded for defending the “system” from activists), it puts everyone at risk.

Peter Young’s home was raided the FBI this week, and the search warrant repeatedly mentions his name in relation to “animal enterprise terrorism.” In the last article we looked at how this Utah raid is, ostensibly, related to the investigation of an Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa.

As with all of these cases, though, it’s important to put this in a bigger political context. Few attempts have been made to connect Young to Iowa (the government argued in court that Young was an “associate” of Scott DeMuth, the defendant in the Iowa case, because DeMuth identified someone in his journal as ‘P’).
Young says he has never met DeMuth, a graduate student whose research has included radical social movements.

However, attempts have been made to repeatedly label Young a “terrorist” not for underground crimes like raiding fur farms (which he was convicted of years ago) but for lawful, aboveground, First Amendment activity. For instance, he published The Blueprint, a listing of fur farms in the United States.

Young wrote in the introduction:

While past fur industry investigations focused on the treatment of animals, this one sought something else: names and addresses. Of all forms of animal rights outreach, the dissemination of “names and addresses” is at once among the most overlooked, and most potent…

The fur industry is among the most vulnerable targets in our sights. We rented a car, and set out to create the roadmap to its collapse.

Fur farmers responded by labeling this document, which is listing of public information obtained lawfully and disseminated lawfully, a “terrorist handbook.”

Multiple newspapers in Utah and Wisconsin published stories with industry soundbites along these lines. The Park Record in Utah reported:

“‘The Blueprint’ is a little disturbing. Basically, what ‘The Blueprint’ is, is a terrorist handbook,” a mink rancher in Coalville told The Park Record on Wednesday.

The man, who is in his 20s, spoke to the newspaper at his ranch on the condition of anonymity.

“All this is is domestic terrorism, and I have a target on my back,” he said in the interview. “They’re out there calling death threats in to ranchers. We spend many sleepless nights on the ranch.”

Most times he is armed, the rancher added.

All of this has the effect of increasing fear of animal rights activists as “terrorists,” and legitimizing any subsequent actions such as FBI raids of activists’ homes. As in all of these Green Scare cases, these media campaigns and this raid are, above all else, about instilling fear.