When I was in Portland, Oregon, I sat down with the nice folks at Because We Must to film a video interview about my work, and some of the lessons learned from the corporate-led war on dissent as “terrorism.”

We filmed it in this beautiful park, and our discussion of a pretty dark topic was interrupted at one point by bald eagles cutting lines through the sky. The three of us all looked at each other after being hit with the same reminder: this is all worth fighting for.

I think this video turned out really well (and I love the Godspeed in the background — that album was on repeat many late nights writing the book). It’s really an honor to me that folks spend their time and energy producing things like this. I don’t think I say this nearly enough, but thank you all for listening to what I have to say.

Interview with Will Potter from Because We Must on Vimeo:

We are are excited to post our interview with our good friend Will Potter. Will runs the very informative blog Green is The New Red and is also the author of the recent book ‘Green Is the New Red: An Insiders Account Of A Social Movement Under Siege’. Will focuses on how the animal rights, and earth liberation movements have been targeted by the Government and labeled as ‘eco-terrorists’ and how dangerous this is for all social justice movements, present and future. After watching the interview, we would love it if you shared it with comrades, friends and family!

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.

The Alyona Show discusses Jordan Halliday, and journalists being labeled as "extremist."

I interviewed with The Alyona Show recently about the prosecution of Jordan Halliday, who was sentenced to 10 months in prison for refusing to testify before a grand jury about his political beliefs, and how my own journalism was labeled as “extremist” in the case.

Check out the video and let me know what you think.

PS: Congrats to Alyona Minkovski for being recognized as one of Forbes Magazine’s “30 Under 30″ influential media figures to watch, and for her in-depth interview with C-Span!

Click here to view the embedded video.

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?

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.

In 2011, we saw two clear, sweeping trends regarding protest movements, and the corporate backlash against them. Before we get to that, though, take a look at the 10 most popular stories of 2011:

10) Tim DeChristopher Sentenced — What’s Next for the Environmental Movement?

9) New Lawsuit Challenges the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act as Unconstitutional

8) Supreme Court Will Not Hear SHAC 7 Case

7) 5 Reasons Why Environmentalists and Animal Activists Should Occupy Wall Street

6) If Sarah Palin Were an Animal Rights Activist, She’d Have Already Been Convicted of “Terrorism”

5) Breaking: 12 Activists Arrested in Spain, Being Charged With “Eco-Terrorism”

4) Minnesota Bill Targets Anyone Who Exposes an “Image or Sound” of Animal Suffering at Factory Farms, Puppy Mills

3) Richmond Cops Mistakenly Hand Over Anti-Protest Guides to Anarchist

2) Senate Approves NDAA Bill that Allows Military to Imprison U.S. Citizens, Without Charge, As “Terrorists”

1) FBI Says Activists Who Investigate Factory Farms Can Be Prosecuted as Terrorist

I created this list according to the number of views each article on this website received. I think some of the stories are more significant than others, but the order really isn’t important.

More important are the trends they reflect.

The first trend is an increasingly aggressive campaign led by corporations against those who effectively threaten profits. I have been writing this blog since 2006, when the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was being debated. If you had told me then that there would be a campaign in multiple states to criminalize undercover investigations, or that environmentalist Tim DeChristopher would receive two years in prison for civil disobedience, I wouldn’t have believed you. On top of that, the hubris of corporations and politicians is also being codified into law in new ways, such as the National Defense Authorization Act, and these tactics are spreading to other countries.

When you stack things up that way, it’s pretty grim.

But that’s only half of the story.

As Tim DeChristopher was being sentenced to prison for non-violent civil disobedience, activists around the country didn’t cower in fear. Thousands protested the creation of the Keystone XL pipeline, and hundreds were arrested saying, “now it’s our turn.” And as new FBI documents reveal that the government has considered terrorism prosecutions against non-violent undercover investigators, activists have hit back with a lawsuit calling the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act unconstitutional.

In other words, the second trend is that resistance is growing.

What’s in store for 2012? The Occupy Wall Street movement has gone from a few dozen tents to a national movement in about 100 days. As more and more people recognize that they are part of the “99 percent,” and act accordingly, Occupy will undoubtedly attract a proportionate backlash from same “one percent” who have targeted animal rights and environmental activists for decades.

There are significant challenges ahead for all of us. It’s hard to know what is the best way to take action, or how we should proceed. But I think Woody Guthrie was on to something with his New Year’s resolution list from 1942.

Two of the items on his list for the new year: “Make up your mind… Wake up and fight.”

Did you miss some of these stories this year? Be sure to sign up for the free email newsletter. You can also follow Green Is the New Red on Facebook and Twitter.

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.”

I had the pleasure of speaking with Jasmin Singer and Mariann Sullivan on their podcast, Our Hen House. It was a great discussion! We talked about why animal activists should join Occupy Wall Street, the possible resurgence of ag-gag bills, and the importance of vibrant, grassroots activism.

Here’s an excerpt:

Jasmin: “…what kinds of activists should AR activists focus on?”

Will: “I do my best to refrain from trying to answer that, because I don’t think I am any more of an expert that anyone listening to this program. I don’t intend that as the total cop out it sounds like, but — I don’t know what the right way to social change is. Through my work I try to raise the point that I don’t think any of us do. I think we all should do what we find most appropriate, given our skills, given our resources, and give our passions. The reason I pursue my work as a form of activism, journalism as activism, is quite simply because I didn’t know what else to do. And I think a lot of people are feeling that way… We all have to find our niches.”

You can listen to the entire show at Our Hen House. My segment of the radio show starts at about 32:34. I hope you’ll listen, and also check out the other Our Hen House podcasts. Jasmin and Mariann offer a wonderful self-reflective voice in the animal rights movement.

I’ll turn one of the questions over to you all: What do you think are the greatest challenges facing the animal rights and environmental movements?

The Rumpus is one of my favorite websites on all of the Internetz. It’s a smart, sharp, literary site, and it was a treat to speak with Caroline Paul about my new book.

Here’s an intro from Caroline:

In 2007, I was put on Homeland Security’s Watch List. True, my brother had just been arrested. He had been a member of the underground Animal Liberation Front, freeing wild mustangs, mink, and lab animals for nigh on twenty years. But the Watch List? Me? Isn’t that for terrorists? It didn’t fully make sense until I picked up Will Potter’s book.

I was eager to speak to Potter, whose Green is the New Red: An Insider’s Account of a Social Movement Under Siege shows how the US government is colluding with corporate America to suppress animal and environmental activism of all stripes.

Please head over to The Rumpus and check out the full interview, then pass it on if you like it. Thanks!