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.

I recently wrote about Jordan Halliday, an animal rights activist who was jailed for refusing to name names before a federal grand jury investigating the release of mink from fur farms. Prosecutors urged a harsh prison sentence because Halliday has publicly vowed to resist the political witch hunt.

In the sentencing memorandum, they said that, while awaiting sentencing, Halliday continued to protest, continued to associate with animal rights activists, and continued to urge activists to support him.

And then prosecutors described to the judge what they said is an even more troubling association.

“Of More Serious Concern”

“Of more serious concern is the fact uncovered by the FBI” that Jordan Halliday was mentioned in a photo caption on this website, they said.

The FBI had given prosecutors an article I wrote titled, “BREAKING: FBI Raids Activist House in Utah, Connected to Iowa ALF Investigation.” I covered this story as it happened, and scooped local press. I was able to do this because, as I noted in the article, “I just got off the phone with multiple housemates who were there witnessing the raid, and who were able to read the warrant.” The housemates called me because I have been reporting on the FBI’s attacks on animal rights and environmental activists since 2001. I later updated the blog post with a photo from the scene that credited Jordan Halliday.

To me, this was Journalism 101 — work fast, then flesh out details and add a photo. To the FBI, this quick work was the evidence of a network of extremists. Prosecutors state in the sentencing memo: “The search warrant was sealed, as is typical, with no warning or public knowledge ahead of the time of service. Nonetheless, photograph taken contemporaneous with the execution of the search warrant service has been attributed to the defendant on the animal rights extremist website” GreenIsTheNewRed.com.

The FBI provided federal prosecutors with a blog post from this website.

Guilty By Association

It is not surprising to see a government sentencing memo try to connect a defendant to “extremists.” I’ve covered this in many, many prosecutions. The intention is to use guilt by association to secure additional prison time. For example, prosecutors will say that Joe Defendant is friends with drug dealers, or that Jane Defendant’s family are in a gang.

In this case, the government labels journalism as extremism.

Prosecutors say that since my article mentioned Halliday in a photo caption, it means he placed himself “above the law” and violated an order to have “No association with animal group[s] A.L.F., E.L.F., Vegan Straight Edge (VSE).” [The ALF and ELF are the underground Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. "Vegan Straight Edge" is a punk lifestyle, not a terrorist group, and I'm having a hard time even typing this explanation without being reminded by these lyrics.]

Packed into that short accusation are two dangerous unstated assumptions:

1. Anyone who takes a photo of law enforcement is associated with those being targeted. Keep in mind that this raid led to no arrests. Yet the government says that merely possessing a photo of it implies criminal association, and is acting “above the law.”
2. Anyone who writes about what the government is doing to animal rights activists is an “animal rights extremist” by extension. This is the most dangerous message being sent by the government. My writing and commentary on civil liberties issues has been featured by NPR, the Los Angeles Times, Mother Jones, and many other of the top media outlets in the country. I have lectured at nearly 100 universities and associations, including Georgetown Law School, Yale Law School, and the House of Democracy and Human Rights in Berlin. My book was awarded a Kirkus Star for “remarkable merit,” and has been praised by Publishers Weekly, Utne, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and many others. I say all this hoping to make clear that if my journalism is being labeled “extremist,” if my entire body of professional work can be reduced to extremism because I ask questions about what the government and corporations are doing, then everyone is at risk.

Chilling Free Speech

If there has been one theme running through all of my work, through every blog post and book chapter and speaking event, it is this: fear. Corporations and politicians are using post-9/11 fears of terrorism to push their political agenda. Fear is being manufactured and manipulated by people in power in order to make people think twice about using their rights.

This chilling effect on First Amendment activity is at the core of lawsuit by the Center for Constitutional Rights challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The vague and overly broad language of the law, and the sweeping attempts of prosecutors to utilize it (such as this grand jury investigation), is unconstitutional not because it has expressly prohibited First Amendment activity, but because it has chilled it.

This is another representation of that constitutional threat, in two ways:

It makes me feel that using my First Amendment rights puts me at risk. Describing journalism as “extremist” in the context of a terrorism investigation is, to put it mildly, unsettling. This isn’t the first time I have learned of surveillance like this. I have previously written about how my writing and speeches have been listed in Counter-Terrorism Unit briefing documents.

More importantly, it makes me feel that using my First Amendment rights puts my sources at risk. When I saw that my work was being used by the FBI and prosecutors against Halliday, it made me sick to my stomach. It’s one thing to see my name in terrorism files, it’s another to see my work being used by prosecutors to punish people I have written about. An old muckraking motto is “comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable.” To have my work afflict people who already have the full weight of the U.S. government pressing down upon them goes against everything I believe about this craft.

A Pattern on Behavior

You might be asking: Was the government really trying to send these messages? Or was this a case of bad FBI intelligence and prosecutors who don’t “get it”? (To steal a line from The Daily Show, “Are they evil, or stupid?”)

I don’t know the answer to that question. But I know government officials have done this before. When I visited Daniel McGowan in the Communications Management Unit, prison officials did not threaten me. They did not expressly prohibit me from writing about the experimental prison units. Instead, they told McGowan that if I wrote about the visit he would be punished for my words.

I also know that prosecutors said Jordan Halliday needs to be punished for his “stardom,” so “defendant’s supporters are not emboldened to follow the defendant’s contemptuous ways.” Through these and many other examples, it’s clear that the government is openly trying to send a message.

And so, as I edit this, about to hit “publish,” I keep hesitating. Will writing about this amplify that message of fear? Everything I do depends on the trust I have built with countless activists and their friends and families. What if this makes people afraid to be mentioned on this website?

The mere fact that I have to ask myself those questions is a testament to how much we have lost in the name of fighting “terrorism.”

This pattern of conduct by the FBI and federal prosecutors is nothing less than an attack on the First Amendment, and an attack on journalism. It is an attempt to foster distrust between author and source, and it is an attempt to shake the confidence that one can report freely and without retribution, both of which are essential to any meaningful expression of journalism in a democracy.

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.”

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act has a chilling effect on First Amendment activity.

Dear Member of Congress:

When I testified before the House Judiciary Committee about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act in 2006, I argued that such sweeping legislation risks criminalizing First Amendment activity as “terrorism” and chilling free speech. Members of the committee, including Rep. Bobby Scott and Rep. James Sensenbrenner, quickly dismissed my concerns and promised that the law would only target property destruction and violence. Lawmakers went so far as to respond to my concerns by including token language in the bill exempting the First Amendment.

The FBI recently used the law, for the first time, and erased any question of whether it will target First Amendment activity. Agents arrested four animal rights activists for “chalking defamatory slogans,” protesting while wearing masks, distributing fliers, and attending a home protest where an alleged forced entry took place. Members of Congress, you have either been duped by the corporations and law enforcement agencies that supported this law, or you have lied to me and lied to the American people.

The Constitutional threat posed by this law extends far beyond these arrests or any that may follow. Corporations, law enforcement agencies and politicians are using “terrorism” rhetoric to instill fear and silence dissent; the true danger posed by this legislation is its chilling effect on speech. Through interviews with hundreds of activists across the country, I have heard that activists feel they must either remain silent about the issues they care about or risk being labeled a “terrorist.” That is not a choice any American should have to make.

This letter may come as quite a surprise to you. Few members of Congress knew of this legislation, and others simply saw no cause for concern. Indeed, the bill passed the Senate in the middle of the night, by unanimous consent. And its supporters rushed this bill through the House using the suspension calendar, with only six Representatives in the room. In a striking example of the hypocrisy of this “War on Terrorism,” many lawmakers were on the national mall praising the non-violent civil disobedience of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King while the House labeled the same tactics used by animal rights activists as “terrorism.”

Members of Congress must send a message, loud and clear, that the tragedy of September 11th should not be exploited to push a political agenda, and that the word “terrorist” should not be a fluid brand to slap on the enemy of the hour. Scarce anti-terrorism resources should not be squandered harassing, infiltrating, and arresting political activists. Flying planes into buildings is not the same thing as chalking slogans.

It is time to repeal the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Animal rights activists are the first political activists targeted by legislation like this. Unless you take action, they will not be the last.

Sincerely,

Will Potter

Just found out an essay I wrote, “McCarthyism 2.o,” won 3rd place in the Lantern Books 2006 essay contest.

Here’s the full text…

McCarthyism 2.0

by Will Potter

Minutes after receiving an invitation to testify before Congress about legislation labeling activists as “terrorists,” I barged into a colleague’s office with a hotshot grin on my face, looking for some kind of congratulations-all-those-years-of-reporting -finally-got-some-attention pat on the back. I also hoped he could help ease my nerves, and, however canned, tell me “you have nothing to worry about, you’ll do great.” I got none of that. A somber look dripped down his face. He turned his head to each side, on the lookout for nosey ears. Then he began to say, slowly and softly, “Do you think that’s a good…”

He had reason for concern. Corporations and the politicians that represent them have been on a coordinated campaign to silence dissent by branding anyone who stands in their way a “terrorist.” They’ve taken a few pages from the Red Scare playbook and a few from the “with us or against us” playbook of the War on Terror. The New McCarthyists are building a Green Scare upon a foundation of fear.

They’ve used their deep pocketbooks and PR savvy to place a terrorist in every shadow. They’ve taken out full-page anonymous ads in both The New York Times and The Washington Post labeling animal rights activists as “terrorists” for being a little too successful, and knocking a controversial animal testing laboratory from the New York Stock Exchange. The National Association for Biomedical Research bought a full-page ad in Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill, featuring a vandalized office and, in red spray paint, “Your home is next” (so lawmakers had better act now and endorse the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act). NABR also sells a poster version of one of their “domestic terrorist” ads (only $5!) featuring three men in black ski masks with axes.

Not even children’s movies are safe from the relentless green baiting and guilt by association. Industry groups labeled Hoot “soft-core eco-terrorism” because the teenage protagonists try to save an endangered owl from developers. The pint-sized activists’ campaign of terror included putting alligators in portable toilets.

Green Scare pioneer Ron Arnold, who admitted he had not yet seen the film when interviewed by one reporter, said, “Hoot’s so-called harmless ‘mischief’ is training a generation to look cute while burning homes and cars and stores.”

The scare-mongering would be laughable if it hadn’t worked its way into the top levels of government. “The No. 1 domestic terrorism threat is the eco-terrorism, animal-rights movement,” according to John Lewis, the top dog at the FBI in charge of domestic terrorism.

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security does not list right-wing terrorists on a list of national security threats, even though those groups have been responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta, violence against doctors, and admittedly creating weapons of mass destruction. The animal rights and environmental movements have done nothing like that.

But those movements have committed an even deadlier sin: targeting corporate profits. “Although incidents related to terrorism are most likely to make the front-page news, animal rights extremism is what’s most likely to affect your day-to-day business operations.” That’s from a presentation given to corporations by the Overseas Security Advisory Council, a division of the State Department.

The Department of Homeland Security has said much of the same. The very first line of a DHS bulletin to law enforcement agencies said: “Attacks against corporations by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists are costly to the targeted company and, over time, can undermine confidence in the economy.”

It goes on to warn about “eco-terrorism” like “flyer distribution,” “organizing protests,” and “tying up company phone lines.” In addition to extremist tactics like “organizing protests” and “inundating computers with e-mails,” DHS notes in passing illegal actions like verbal harassment and vandalism. But nowhere in the bulletin is the word “violence” used.

Even though my colleague didn’t know the details of the “eco-terrorism” legislation, he didn’t know the list of corporations and industry groups behind it and he didn’t know the full scale of this scare-mongering, he knew enough: in the “with us or against us” War on Terror, he wouldn’t want to risk being placed in the “against us” camp.

What if my boss doesn’t approve? What if I lose my job? What if this gets me placed on “terrorist” blacklists? What if what if what if?

I answered “yes” before he could even finish the question. The visceral reply startled me: I’m no rebel reporter with nerves of steel, ready to throw all my chips on the table and let it ride. I’m overly cautious with many decisions, analyzing and re-analyzing them until I nearly incapacitate myself. But no, this time he was the one who was overreacting, I told myself. I may get slammed during the hearing but lawmakers aren’t going to ship me off to Gitmo. Or would they?

I told a few other friends—still selfishly looking for some ego-stroking, still desperately hoping for some positive reinforcement—but got much of the same. They had supported my writing and attempts to raise awareness about the Green Scare. But in this political climate, why draw a giant red, er, green target on your back?

It made me realize that that’s the point of all of this. The purpose of the balaclava-clad ad campaigns, the State Department briefings, the DHS memos, the outlandish prison sentences, the FBI harassment and the blacklists is not to protect national security or even to catch illegal, underground activists. The point is to instill fear in the mainstream animal rights and environmental movements—and every other social movement paying attention—and make people think twice about using their First Amendment rights.

When prominent activists are hauled before grand juries and threatened with jail time unless they discuss their political beliefs and political associations, you start to wonder if you’ll get hit with the same for sticking your neck out too far.

When a nonviolent activist like Adam Durand gets 180 days in jail, $1,500 in fines, probation, plus 100 hours of community service, all for producing an undercover documentary about a factory farm, you start to wonder if it could happen to you.

And when the SHAC7 are convicted on “animal enterprise terrorism” charges for running a website, you start to wonder if you’ll be next.

The Red Scare operated on exactly the same terms. Take the case of Lamont v. Postmaster General. There was a federal law that said anyone receiving “communist political propaganda” through the post office had to specifically authorize the delivery of each piece of mail.

The law didn’t say it was illegal to send or receive communist propaganda. It just said you had to authorize it. But that has the same effect, doesn’t it? You’d have to be a real nut job to voluntarily put your name on a list of folks receiving commie propaganda during the Red Scare: clueless, fearless, or a little of both. So people didn’t do it.

McCarthyism 2.0 runs the same way. Corporations and the politicians that represent them aren’t trying to blatantly outlaw the animal rights and environmental movements. But they’re creating a climate of fear that they hope will have the same effect.

Today’s repression may mimic many of the tactics of the Red Scare, but today’s response cannot. Witch-hunts will test the backbone of social movements, just as they did decades ago. But it’s not enough to cowardly distance ourselves from the “eco-terrorists,” as many did during the Red Scare. Condemning underground activists, or anyone charged with illegal actions, won’t get you off the hook. Naming names and making loyalty oaths didn’t protect activists then, and it won’t protect activists now.

The only way we’re going to get through this is by coming out and confronting it head-on. That means working with anti-abortion activists, anti-war activists and others, and telling them that the greens are just the canaries in the mine. That means reaching out to mainstream Americans and telling them that labeling activists as terrorists wastes valuable anti-terrorism resources and is an insult to everyone who died in the twin towers.

And that means reaching out to colleagues, friends and family and talking openly and honestly about the fear, rather than dismissing it. I missed a valuable opportunity that day, to talk about the chilling effect of terrorism rhetoric and how we can confront it together, because I was so focused on the task at hand. It’s important that we not let the scare-mongering deter us from our work, whether it’s testifying against dangerous legislation or exposing factory farms. But it’s equally important that we have supportive relationships ready for when the War on Terror comes home. That means taking every available opportunity to build strong communities of people who know their rights, know how they’re threatened, and know what’s at stake if we acquiesce.

I have a guest editorial in the latest issue of Satya Magazine on the chilling effect of all this “eco-terrorism” rhetoric and legislation.

You can read it here on GreenIsTheNewRed.com.

Also be sure to check out the rest of Satya’s “Green Scare” issue.

Let me know what you think.

Best,

Will

A 111-year-old Portland fur store closed last week after ongoing protests by local activists, and the owner of the store says he has been “terrorized.” Greg Schumacher of Schumacher Furs & Outerwear says the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act should be used to silence the protestors. The New McCarthyists are rushing to his defense, trying to spin the successful, legal campaign as “eco-terrorism” because it has hurt corporate profits.

Patti Strand, national director of the National Animal Interest Alliance, an industry group, told The Oregonian:

“There’s no question the lines of free speech are being probed by the kind of protest activity that has been going on in front of Schumacher’s,” she said.

Really? That’s not what city officials say. Spencer Heinz and Seth Prince at The Oregonian reported:

City Commissioner Randy Leonard, who said he’d offered to help Schumacher and his wife, Linda, after the protests started last November, recalled how quickly he came to regret the move.

“I honestly had never been involved in anything in which I felt like the folks I was trying to help did not want to be helped,” Leonard said.

“The Schumachers carry at minimum — at minimum — equal responsibility for what happened outside their store,” Leonard said. “I think the case could be made they did what they could to fan the flames at every opportunity.”

Schumacher has put signs in his window, like the one posted here from KGW.com advocating violence against nonviolent activists. And activist Matt Rossell said the Schumacher security guard has threatened to “break your arms and legs.”

Meanwhile, Portland police have spent about $25,000 to appease Schumacher and have a presence at the demonstrations. The protests usually involve a dozen people on Saturday afternoons, and there have been 13 arrests since last December (none for violence).

Police say Schumacher has rejected their advice and prompted more protests. The Mayor, Tom Potter (no relation) offered to mediate but Schumacher replied, “I don’t think it is reasonable to ask me to mediate with a terroristic organization.”

That scare-mongering and green baiting has worked its way into public discourse as well. Local letters to the editor have proclaimed “animal terrorists win,” and implied activists will go after anyone with a leather couch.

There has been a flood of statements from corporations and the politicians that represent them about how the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act won’t be used to silence First Amendment activity. (Never mind the fact that the original law was used to do exactly that, and convict the SHAC 7 on “terrorism” charges for running a website.

Yet here we have a business owner targeted by legal protests who expects the law to protect his profits. And industry groups have come to his defense, also expecting the law to protect his profits. Activists, though, don’t know what to expect from this vague and overly broad legislation—and that’s the danger. As a local news station said about the bill, “It’s language is not crystal clear.” It remains to be seen how the law will be used to overtly silence dissent. In the meantime, activists are preparing for the next campaign.

Most of the scare-mongering rhetoric from the New McCarthyists thus far has been about national security and looming terrorism threats. At an event in Manchester, New Hampshire, honoring those who have stood up for free speech, Newt Gingrich made a few comments that indicate a much broader, more overt attack on First Amendment activity in the name of the War on Terrorism. We’re not talking “chilling effect,” here.

According to Riley Yates in the November 28 Union Leader:

MANCHESTER – Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.

Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a “different set of rules” may be needed to reduce terrorists’ ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.

“We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade,” said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOP’s takeover of Congress in 1994.