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.

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?

Utah animal rights activists Jordan Halliday was sentenced to an additional 10 months in prison today for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury.

The grand jury was convened to investigate the release of mink from Utah fur farms by the Animal Liberation Front. Halliday refused to cooperate because grand juries have repeatedly been used by the government as a tool for fishing expeditions, forcing activists to testify about their political beliefs and political associations.

Grand juries have historically been used against social movements (and are also being used against antiwar activists in the Midwest). They’re a tool to harass and intimidate activists, and foster fear and distrust among activist communities. If you don’t know about grand juries, I think this clip from the Rockford Files is a good start.

Halliday will be appealing the sentence. He is scheduled to report to prison in January.

I’ve written about the community support Halliday has received, and that will need to continue as this moves forward. This video clip is a song he wrote in thanks to supporters. An excerpt:

I’ll read a lot of books.
I’ll get really smart.
I’ll bulk up.
And tear those books apart.
(I’m just kidding)

Visit Jordan Halliday’s support website.

A Utah animal rights activist has been indicted by a federal grand jury on felony contempt charges for asserting his First and Fifth Amendment rights, and refusing to cooperate with the “animal rights terrorism” witch hunt. His trial is scheduled to begin on November 2.

The grand jury is investigating the release of thousands of mink from Utah ranches. Jordan Halliday has already served several months in jail for contempt of court for refusing to testify, and now the grand jury is going after him again.

Grand juries can compel people to testify without representation by an attorney. They are conducted in secret, and exist as a legal vacuum where First and Fifth Amendment rights can be deemed by a judge to no longer apply.

[Here's a "Grand Jury 101 from the Rockford Files."]

Halliday has a federal public defender in this case, but still needs to raise about $600 to pay his previous attorney; if you would like to make a donation, please visit his support website, www.SupportJordan.com.

A Utah animal rights activist, Jordan Halliday, has been jailed for refusing to testify before a grand jury about his political beliefs and political associations. But you know what, he’s in good company. Check out this clip of Jim Rockford in the Rockford Files as he is hauled before a grand jury and jailed for refusing to testify.

“I have not only been cited with contempt, I have been treated with contempt. And with a total disregard for my rights, guaranteed me under the Constitution. I have been guilty of nothing, except… with the ignorance that in a proeeding of law you could slander, and threaten and try to intimidate me with impunity…

“There is no such thing as a small injustice, there is no such thing as a minor abridgment of rights. That if even one citizen is so deprived, make no mistake, we all suffer.”

-Jim Rockford

Jordan Halliday, photo by Deseret News.

• Feds says Halliday is “making a mockery of the rule of law” as they use a draconian, secret court. Halliday was found in contempt of court for refusing to testify before a grand jury, a secret proceeding where witnesses are not allowed to have attorneys present. His attorney asserted Halliday’s First Amendment right to free association, and suggested that the government has used illegal surveillance tactics. It is the FBI and prosecutors, not Halliday, who are making a mockery of the law.
• Feds say they’re preventing crime, and admit they’re inspiring crime. Two animal rights activists were arrested as “terrorists” for allegedly raiding fur farms, and the Feds says this grand jury will bring additional criminals to justice. Yet the FBI is already warning of “sympathy attacks” by groups like the Animal Liberation Front. In other words, the FBI acknowledges that going after lawful, above-ground activists, and jailing them for refusing to participate in political witch hunts, will actually inspire more illegal activity. If FBI agents know that targeting above-ground activists leads to underground crimes, yet they continue to do so, it shows that the real target isn’t the ALF: it’s First Amendment activity.

When Halliday’s attorney was asked if jail time will change his decision to not cooperate, he replied: “I understand it’s not going to change anything. He’s adamant about his position.”

Write him:

Jordan Halliday #324013
c/o Salt Lake County Metro Jail
3415 S. 900 W.
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
USA

Activists protest grand jury in Utah investigating the Animal Liberation Front.

When two animal rights activists were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury on February 18th, local organizers showed that the activists had public support, and that no one would be intimidated into remaining silent.

The grand jury was investigating the release of thousands of mink from two fur farms by the Animal Liberation Front. Just two week later, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force arrested two Utah animal rights activists, William Viehl and Alex Hall, in connection with the fur farm raids.

I wanted to draw your attention to this grand jury, because it’s an example of how the government uses the pretext of “investigating illegal activity” to harass and intimidate lawful activists. It’s also a great example of how people can organize in response to those tactics.

The activists subpoenaed weren’t been charged with any crimes. They were hauled before a grand jury and ordered to testify about their political beliefs and political associations, all without being permitted to have an attorney present. In these situations, if activists refuse to cooperate they face jail time. If they agree to cooperate, they aid the government’s fishing expedition and validate witch hunt tactics.

Grand juries have historically been used against social movements. They’re a tool to harass and intimidate activists, and foster fear and distrust among activist communities.

Grand juries are hella sketch.

“Although I do support it, I am not affiliated with it,” Halliday said.

Halliday said prosecutors were unhappy with his refusal to testify. He expects to be called before the grand jury again.

“I’m uncertain at this point,” he said. “It seems they were just fishing for information.”

What Halliday is describing is part of the FBI’s 5-Step Process to Criminalize First Amendment Activity as “Terrorism.” He’s not accused of being involved in the fur farm raid, but he openly unabashedly supports those tactics.

The government argues that grand juries exist to determine if there is enough evidence of a crime to pursue a criminal case. But grand juries almost always indict because only the prosecution presents its case, says University of Utah Associate Law Professor Daniel Medwed notes.

Sure enough, that’s exactly what happened. I actually had a version of this post set to be published on March 5th, but removed it because the grand jury indicted two activists just hours earlier. In the original version of the post, I wrote:

There’s something brewing in Utah, and if the recent arrests are any indication, it might be part of an Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act prosecution. But if the response of activist communities is any indication, the government is going to have a hell of a fight on its hands.

Check out these photos I received from outside of the courthouse. It’s inspiring to see the public support shown to these activists. Rather than stay at home and be afraid of scare-mongering tactics, local activists organized a demonstration and reached out to the media. [If you’re curious about the masks, check out “5 Reasons for Activists to Cover Their Faces at Protests”]

These activists didn’t go into the grand jury proceedings alone. They had a vocal community of people supporting them every step of the way.

What do you think should be done to show the two individuals facing “terrorism” charges the same support?