The Supreme Court has struck down a federal law targeting “depictions of animal cruelty,” including dog-fighting and “crush” videos. And that’s a very good thing for the animal rights movement.

That might sound incongruous, at best, and heretical, at worst, to animal rights activists. Many people who care about animals have treated the ruling as a defeat, an attack on their attempts to protect animals from being tortured in the name of entertainment. However, the ruling in US v. Stevens is an important one for animal rights activists for three reasons:

1. Similar legislation could undoubtedly have been used against supporters of the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and direct action. Proponents of the legislation, 18 U.S.C. 48, argued that the animal cruelty depicted in such videos is illegal, and it has “minimum redeeming value.” To be clear, I am not taking issue with either point. This conduct should be illegal, and it has no more redeeming value, in my opinion, than child pornography. However, the legislation itself is too broad and too vague. Denying First Amendment rights based on whether the media depicts illegal conduct with a “redeeming value” is incredibly dangerous. As the court said, it reflects an “alarming breadth.” These are standards that could easily be tweaked to apply to the publications of animal rights activists themselves.

   Within the animal rights and environmental movements there are publications that support property destruction and direct action. Magazines such as No Compromise, Bite Back, and the Earth First Journal support illegal tactics and sometimes include “how-to” style columns. There have also been full-length films and activist campaign videos that unabashedly support direct action, and clearly urge others to do the same. (The trailer above is a good example, as are the videos in the campaign to shut down Huntingdon Life Sciences).

   I have no doubt that the same industry groups who have sponsored “eco-terrorism” legislation would seek to use a similar rational to defend their attacks on publications like Bite Back or films like Behind the Mask. Does that sound far-fetched? Well, “eco-terrorism” legislation out of Washington State proposed exactly that.

2. Similar legislation could be used to target depictions of animal cruelty produced by activists themselves. This may seem like another overly-worrisome claim. But if you have been following the tactics of industry groups, it is clear that they are willing to use any and all tools at their disposal, including distorting existing laws and proposing new ones to attack even the most mainstream organizations.

   For examples, see these two articles:

   *Ringling Bros. Sues ASPCA Using Mafia Law
   *Mafia Law Used Against Environmentalists for Tree Sits, Civil Disobedience, Blog Post

   The mob law was never intended to target animal rights activists protesting the circus, and this law was never intended to target undercover investigations by animal rights activists, but in the hands of well-funded corporate industry groups and ambitious prosecutors, vague legislation can be exploited.

   What was even more worrisome about this case is that the government defended this fluidity. “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection,” the government argued, “depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

   Chief Justice Roberts rebuked the Obama administration for that, and rightly so: “As a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage, that sentence is startling and dangerous.”

3. The court made clear that Congress can’t simply say, “Trust us, we’re the government.”The court focused much of its arguments on the scope of the legislation, and how it has, and will be, applied. The government responded to concerns about over breadth by promising to only prosecute “extreme cruelty.”

   In this ruling, the Supreme Court unequivocally rejected those promises.

   “The First Amendment protects against the government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige,” Roberts wrote.
   
   “We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it reasonably.” [emphasis added]

   Similar questions are at the heart of opposition to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, legislation so broad it is being used to target activists for chalking slogans on public streets.

   When I testified before Congress against the AETA, I argued that it was vague and overly broad, and therefore must be rejected on Constitutional grounds. In response, supporters included a provision that says nothing in the law shall be construed “to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment.”

   This ruling is an important one because it makes incredibly clear that the government’s promises, whether only to prosecute depictions of “extreme cruelty” or only to prosecute those who support “extreme” activism, are meaningless.

Some activists have incorrectly portrayed the Supreme Court as ruling that animal cruelty is protected speech. Far from it. The court did not challenge the intent of this legislation, or its value. It simply said that this particular approach, this particular legislation, was too vague and too broad.

To put it another way, this ruling is not about supporting these despicable videos, it is about not prohibiting others. And that’s a sentiment which will ultimately benefit supporters of both mainstream and “radical” animal rights activism.

Hugh Farrell and Gina “Tiga” Wertz have their first court date on July 14th: they’ve been charged with racketeering-–charges originally intended to target the mob–-for allegedly “conspiring” to engage in tree sits, participate in non-violent civil disobedience, and make an inflammatory blog post against the I-69 NAFTA superhighway.

When I reported on their arrest, though, I didn’t catch an interesting bit of information buried in the government’s motion for $20,000 cash bond. Mind you, these activists are not accused of any property destruction or violence, they’re accused of “conspiracy.” So how did the government attempt to justify the high cash bond?

According to Farrell’s motion for bond:

“The defendant has been observed advocating literature and materials which advocate anarchy, property destruction and violence, including ‘Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching’ or ‘Recipes for Disaster: An Anarchist Cookbook.’”

In many ways, this is nothing new: the demonization of anarchists has existed as long as the term itself. But this is dangerous territory for a few reasons:

• It reflects more wasted resources on surveillance of First Amendment activity. Why was Farrell being “observed” by the law enforcement while allegedly “advocating literature” in the first place?
• It is intended to punish people for their political beliefs. Even if it is true that Farrell was observed advocating literature and that the literature advocated “anarchy,” how does this to relate to whether or not he’ll show up for his court date (which is what bail is all about)?
• Criminalizing books has no place in a democracy. Make no mistake, that’s what this is about: criminalizing dissent. The government isn’t burning the books, and it isn’t saying it is illegal to own them, but prosecutors are saying that if you *do* own them or “advocate” them it reflects negatively on your character.

  In that case, I’m guilty as well (and I’m sure I’m in good company with many of you). I own both of these books, and they are both available in countless bookstores and on Amazon.com. “Ecodefense” was a pivotal book in the history of the environmental movement, and includes an introduction by Ed Abbey. “Recipes for Disaster,” published by CrimethInc., isn’t the “anarchist cookbook,” you might expect: It has sections on coalition building and mental health.

As with so many of the cases I write about on this site, this isn’t about threats to public safety, it isn’t about property destruction, it’s about demonizing people because of their political beliefs. Well, in this case, it’s not even about that: It’s about demonizing people because of their books.

[The fact that prosecutors see these books as a threat is all the more reason to get yourself a copy or two. If you order them, please do so through the GreenIsTheNewRed.com Amazon account, below, and support this site at the same time! ]

Two environmental activists in Bloomington, Ind., have been charged with racketeering–charges originally intended to target the mob–for allegedly “conspiring” to engage in tree sits, participate in non-violent civil disobedience, and make an inflammatory blog post.

Hugh Farrell and Gina “Tiga” Wertz are organizers in the campaign to halt expansion of the I-69 NAFTA superhighway. They were arrested on Friday, April 24th, and they’re each facing five charges that carry a maximum of eight years in prison.

Four of the charges are misdemeanors for “intimidation” and “conversion” (treating someone else’s property as your own). All four misdemeanors are related to a civil disobedience stunt where some activists removed the furniture from an I-69 project office, occupied the space, and posted an eviction notice. The government says the civil disobedience stunt was intended to place Ronnie Wilson in fear, and subject him to “contempt or ridicule.”

The felony charge is for corrupt business influence, or racketeering. The government isn’t arguing that these activists were actually engaged in racketeering, but that they are part of Roadblock EarthFirst (described as a criminal enterprise) and “conspired” to do so. According to their arrest warrants, Farrell and Wertz:

• “Conspired” to remove office furniture from I-69 project offices as part of eviction notice stunts.
• “Conspired” to post an “internet blog on two publicly accessed website stating ‘you will suffer the consequences’ and ‘perhaps we’ll go to your homes, children’s daycare, churches or wherever else you happen to turn your back.” The blog posts were made after the violent removal of activists from a tree sit.
• “Conspired” to commit “theft” when six individuals blocked the entrance to Gohmann Asphalt and Construction Company using non-violent civil disobedience and caused a loss of profits.
• “Conspired” to commit “theft” by “taking unauthorized control of trees” and “depriving lawful owners of use and/or value of the said trees.” (Note: the last two bullets are only in Wertz’s arrest warrant.)

Racketeering laws are intended to combat organized crime, such as the mafia, and include crimes like extortion, bribery and money laundering. Although ambitious prosecutors have tried to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to target anti-abortion activists, animal rights activists, and the Hells Angels, the purpose of the law has always been to go after illegal business activity.

But these activists, and others like them, are not protesting this superhighway to make money. They’re not doing it for personal gain. Halting this environmental destruction will not financially benefit them in any way.

Then why use mob laws against them? Because of their beliefs.

Tree sits, office takeovers and road blockades are against the law, and the government has the tools and resources to prosecute those crimes.

But because of the politics of the alleged crimes, prosecutors are reaching for more. Civil disobedience has become “theft.” Tree sits have become “unauthorized control of trees.” These trumped-up charges are a way to take what are, at the very worst, misdemeanor crimes and turn them into federal crimes. It’s an attack on individuals perceived as being leaders in the movement for the sole purpose of stamping out dissent.

A support website for Hugh Farrell and Gina “Tiga” Wertz has been set up at http://mostlyeverything.net.

Shock-jock talk radio host Michael Savage is suing the Council on American Islamic Relations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. RICO was originally intended to go after the mob. This is from a right-wing site applauding Savage for the lawsuit, and his attempts to label CAIR as “terrorists” using racketeering laws:

Savage and celebrity civil rights attorney Daniel Horowitz are attempting to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to make the case that “CAIR and its co-conspirators have aided, abetted and materially sponsored al-Qaida and international terrorism.”

CAIR launched a campaign against “The Savage Nation,” as the program is called, using extended audio clips of the show to make the case that advertisers who supported the talker were actually endorsing “hate speech” against Muslims.

Savage turned the tables on the activist group by initially suing for copyright violation of the show’s material. This week the suit was expanded with some of the strongest allegations ever made against CAIR publicly.

You can read the court filing here.

I’m highlighting this on GreenIsTheNewRed.com because using RICO was one of the earlier waves of attacks against animal rights activists, before corporations and the government used “animal enterprise terrorism” charges (this article has much more information on the SHAC 7 case).

As with the grand jury witch hunts against Puerto Rican activists, these government tactics are quite fluid. What is being used against one movement can easily turn into a tool to go after the new enemy of the hour. I’ll be talking more about this, and making connections between social movements, at NCOR next month.

You might already know that the SHAC 7 were convicted of “animal enterprise terrorism” for running a controversial website that listed personal information about corporations tied to the notorious animal testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences. You might not know, though, that before that the corporations SHAC targeted hit back with various other legal tactics. Restraining orders. Injunctions. Lawsuits for damages. Notably, they even used the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, RICO, a law meant to go after the mob. Eventually, a federal “terrorism” law got the corporations what they wanted, and put the animal advocates behind bars, but that came after this series of aggressive legal moves.

Taking a page from that playbook, last week Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus continued its beleaguered attack on animal advocates by suing the ASPCA and other animal rights groups using RICO. Yep, a law meant to go after the mafia being exploited to target animal groups.

Groups like the ASPCA never sent anyone to swim with the fishes (well, not in that Godfather kind of way). But according to Bloomberg:

“This lawsuit is a direct result of the animal rights extremists’ agenda to deny families in the United States entertainment choices like the circus and their ongoing conspiracy to harm Feld Entertainment,” company spokesman Stephen Payne said in a statement.

It might seem like a stretch to argue that campaigning against animal cruelty is akin to mob bosses roughing up business owners. But it’s not that surprising if you look at how else Ringling has targeted animal groups.
According to The Washington Post, Ringling paid one investigator more than $1 million a year to infiltrate animal groups, and
hired a former CIA deputy director to help spy.

Ringling’s internal documents showed that the circus hired private investigators who infiltrated several animal rights groups across the country, obtained credit card and other personal data and stole stacks of confidential papers, such as donor lists and strategy memos.

Peta sued Ringling over this, and lost because the jury found no harm (for instance, Ringling’s attorneys argued that Peta’s fundraising kept going strong during this period). [On a related note, check out this great Salon.com article by Jeff Stein on Ringling's escapades.]

The main point here, though, is not that Ringling has spied, snooped, stolen and smeared animal advocates. (Unfortunately, in the scheme of corporate abuses, that’s pretty tame. Pfizer, a drug company targeted by SHAC and a promoter of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, is being sued by the Nigerian government for giving children an experimental drug that killed 11 and injured 189. And Chiquita has admitted paying $1.7 million to right wing death squads. The list goes on and on and on…)

The big concern, I think, is the long road Ringling has been going down. We keep seeing this over and over. Social justice advocates target a corporation, the corporation hits back to protect profits and public image, and if the corporation doesn’t succeed at first it keeps hitting and hitting and hitting, exploiting any legal tools available. In this case, that means using a mob law to go after animal groups. And if that doesn’t work? What next? Pressuring the government to use the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act?

For nonprofit organizations, who don’t have deep pockets like Ringling, these lawsuits suck up scarce time and resources. More importantly, though, they instill a level of fear in everyday people working for social change, forcing them to wonder if they’ll get sued for being a little too effective.