The House passed 'Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act'

[gerrilea]

I hope this isn't a dupe...but I saw the debate on C-span earlier when I got home from work today and listened to the arguements and this bill that passed is really bad for anyone that believes in free speech.

I been searching the web for more info and even was on the House's website but could find the bill number...

[MzNov]

1. This is absolutely terrible.

A caller was talking about it today on Thom Hartmann. WTF is wrong with congress????

:mad:

[yewberry]

2. Yup.

It's S. 3880.

Inhofe again. :mad:

edit: the link is temporary and won't work. You can scroll through this page to 3:16 pm and link to the text:
http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html

(thanks v/v/ar board for the link!)

[atommom]

3. Here it is. H.R. 4239. (the House version that passed)

ETA Better formatted link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:h4239:

[gerrilea]

27. Thanks for the link...but I couldn't find the "revised" bill that passed...

I'll keep looking...the link you gave when I put in the bill number only brought up the houses' version...:toast:

[atommom]

36. Didn't the Senate version of that bill already pass?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.1926.IS:

[flvegan]

37. Yes, and now it's passed the House. On to chimpy for his crayola X.

[Zodiak]

40. yeah, it says it passed the Senate by unanimous consent

Does that mean that EVERY Senator supported it?

[Xithras]

4. Can someone explain the opposition to this?

As I understand it, the bill was developed with bipartisan input and the assistance of the ACLU to avoid infringing on free speech. It has specific passages guranteeing that it cannot be used to stifle free speech...and specifically includes protesting in its protected activities list...and also excludes legitimate boycotts from its definition of "economic harm". I heard a piece on the radio about it this morning, and it sounded like it was pretty narrowly focused on activities that actually damaged property or threatened the lives of people.

I'll admit that I haven't looked at it very closely, so tell me...what am I missing?

[Rainscents]

5. No...ACLU never agree to this bill.

I just read this over at Green-red web site.

[atommom]

8. Here's an article explaining the opposition.

I haven't had time to peruse it closely either.

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (H.R. 4239) is just days away from action in the House of Representatives. The bill sets out to label a wide range of advocacy "terrorism" for damaging or disrupting an animal-use enterprise or connected businesses. Although it exempts "lawful economic disruption that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information" about an enterprise, it could make nonviolent acts of civil disobedience into "terrorism" where they substantially affect corporate profits. An effective campaign using mailings and demonstrations against an animal circus, for example, could be called terrorism under the Act because it disrupted the enterprise.

The bill also aims to place "force, violence and threats involving animal enterprises" inside another federal law -- one that authorizes "interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications."

Charged advocates could face long jail terms, or at a minimum be forced to spend substantial time and resources arguing that the action was constitutionally protected expression. Win or lose, those so charged would have to live with the stigma of being associated, however fallaciously, with terrorism. Other advocates might deliberately weaken or avoid what would otherwise be effective campaigns, so as to not suffer the same fate as people unfairly targeted under such a law. That is what's known as the "chilling effect" on First Amendment rights.

The bill is redundant, as federal laws already provide penalties for violent activities targeting animal enterprises. If it becomes law, its ill-defined terms will vex potential whistleblowers and capable advocates alike. Its enactment will add to the current anxiety surrounding rights of association and expression -- rights essential to any society in which people's opinions matter.

And it's not just AETA. At the state level as well as the federal level, and indeed internationally, the proliferation of terror-themed laws with vague applications and crushing consequences seems unstoppable. To effectively address this runaway legislative train, we need to understand how its components came together in the first place, and what fuel drives it today. How has the concept of "eco-terrorism" found its way into daily conversation, newspapers, laws, and the way people now think about traditionally respected activism?

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Oct06/Hall31.htm

[ThomCat]

43. So the government now has permission

to wiretap and read the mail of any vegan, vegetarian and animal rights supporter on suspicions of terrorism.

Merely holding up a sign outside of a business makes you a terrorist and gets you tried as one.

Planning a protest makes you a terrorist and gets you tried as one.

There is no longer a right to freedom of speech if you believe that cruelty to animals is wrong. Our freedom of speech has been taken away.
x(

[keepCAblue]

9. The ACLU and ASPCA strongly OPPOSED this bill

See ACLU's statement:

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/25620leg20060306.html

See my post above regarding the ASPCA's statement (post #6)

[Xithras]

12. I'm looking for corroboration, but the statement was that opposition was "withdrawn"

The claim was that the ACLU came out in strong opposition to the original bill, and were invited to participate in the process. After some changes were made, the ACLU withdrew its opposition. The link above goes to an older release, and may well be from the original opposition.

I've found several other sites on the Internet that claim the same thing, but it's mostly on blogs. I'm looking for something more "official".

[keepCAblue]

16. Have you emailed the ACLU directly and asked them for confirmation of their withdrawal?

[Xithras]

23. Yes, no response yet.

There doesn't appear to be any official withdrawal information anywhere on the ACLU website, but I did find references in one of the House Judiciary Committee hearings on the bill which confirmed that both the ASPCA and the ACLU were working with the government to amend the bill after it was initially released. That hearing was on 5/23, well after the original ACLU opposition statement came out, so it is apparently confirmed that the ACLU did work with the government to amend the bill after initially opposing it. Whether they approved of the final bill and actually withdrew their opposition remains to be seen.

I'll wait for some confirmation from the ACLU before taking a position either way.

[keepCAblue]

31. I emailed them too...

My email to the ACLU:

Tonight (11/13/06) the House of Reps conducted a voice vote in passing HR 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The ACLU had previously been on record as opposing this bill. However, tonight on the House floor, Rep. Sensenbrenner refuted this. Could you please confirm your stance on HR 4239 and explain Rep. Sensenbrenner's following statement:

...the most disturbing segment of this whole scare-mongering debacle was when Sensenbrenner ended his comments, and ended the floor debate, by talking about the American Civil Liberties Union. He said the ACLU is the guardian of the First Amendment. He said the ACLU has a proud history of being a constitutional watchdog. And he said he has a letter, from the ACLU, saying they would not oppose this legislation and had no substantial concerns...

[Jcrowley]

35. Problems at the ACLU

Introduction
Everyone makes mistakes. But some mistakes are innocent-- like overestimating income and incurring financial deficits as a result -- and some mistakes involve breaches of principles so fundamental that they amount to misconduct. Some mistakes are committed out in the open, after full discussion and debate, while others are committed covertly, with crucial information withheld from the governing Board of Directors until it is too late. Some mistakes are transformed into misconduct by efforts to cover them up, with evasions and half-truths, if not outright lies. We are all too familiar with such cover-ups and their corrosive effects.

Our charges against the current leadership of the ACLU are serious. If true, they cannot be justified by the fact that the ACLU has successfully raised a lot of money and is in excellent financial health nor by the fact that the ACLU continues to do a great deal of excellent, important work. Hewlett-Packard may have a great product line, and its financial health may be excellent, but no one accepts that an excuse for spying on journalists or board members and secretly obtaining their private telephone records. And no one should.

During the past 3 years, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero has made what many agree were serious mistakes, some reflecting insensitivity if not hostility to fundamental ACLU values, notably free speech, some involving the concealment and distortion of information. Board President, Nadine Strossen, and members of the Executive Committee have not only failed to provide appropriate oversight of Romero: they have helped conceal or cover up his mistakes, misleading the ACLU board, as well as members, donors, and the press. The apparent dishonesty with which they have addressed mistakes has long been a primary cause of dissension.

We are not protesting mere mistakes or innocent lapses in judgment. We are protesting a pattern of malfeasance, involving repeated misrepresentations of material facts about important matters of policy and governance. Collectively the board has trivialized or ignored this pattern, while marginalizing or vilifying people who drew the board’s attention to it. Gradually board members who questioned or criticized the leadership’s actions have either resigned or been defeated electorally.

What follows is a narrative summary of a few serious breaches of duty or principle by the current ACLU leadership. It is substantiated by an extensive factual record, including minutes of meetings, tapes, and emails; if anyone doubts or disputes our factual claims, we would welcome an independent inquiry. Internal ACLU critics have requested an independent review of the facts on several occasions, but their requests have always been rebuffed or ignored.

Click here to continue reading the Facts of the Matter

http://savetheaclu.org/

[keepCAblue]

50. The ACLU's response to my email says they still oppose...

Here is their emailed response (note there is no reference to any change in position or a more recent statement):

Thank you for your e-mail.

The ACLU Letter to Congress Urging Opposition to the Animal Enterprise Act, S. 1926 and H.R. 4239 (3/6/2006) can be read at http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/25620leg20060306.html.

If you are not already an ACLU member, we encourage you to help support our aggressive work on the issues you care about. To join please visit http://www.aclu.org/contribute/contribute.cfm or call 1-888-567-ACLU.

Once again, thank you for your interest in the ACLU.

Sincerely,
D. Barber
Correspondence Manager, American Civil Liberties Union
======= Subject: HR 4239: Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Tonight (11/13/06) the House of Reps conducted a voice vote in passing HR 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The ACLU had previously been on record as opposing this bill. However, tonight on the House floor, Rep. Sensenbrenner refuted this. Could you please confirm your stance on HR 4239 and explain Rep. Sensenbrenner's following statement:

the most disturbing segment of this whole scare-mongering debacle was when Sensenbrenner ended his comments, and ended the floor debate, by talking about the American Civil Liberties Union. He said the ACLU is the guardian of the First Amendment. He said the ACLU has a proud history of being a constitutional watchdog. And he (Sensenbrenner) said he has a letter, from the ACLU, saying they would not oppose this legislation and had no substantial concerns...

[Susang]

49. I would find it strange their opposition statement was still up

If they had rescinded it later. I've searched the site and found nothing about it. Perhaps you're thinking of the original AEPA, passed in 1992, though I'm pretty sure the ACLU opposed that as well. This bill amends that act, increasing penalties and broadening the scope of what actions can be punished and what businesses are to be included.

[keepCAblue]

53. Here is the ACLU's letter to the House Judiciary Committee (HJC)

Note that the ACLU's letter of rescinding their original position of opposition is CONDITIONAL upon the House effecting several changes in the text of the legislation (S. 3880). From what I'm able to find so far, none of the ACLU's recommended changes were made before the House' passage of S.3880 (I'm told the bill the House passed last night via a voice vote was the SENATE VERSION, S. 3880, not H.R. 4239).

ACLU's letter to the HJC: http://www.aclu.org/images/general/asset_upload_file809_27356.pdf

According to Will Potter, blogger for GreenIsTheNewRed.com, Rep. Sensenbrenner, claimed the following with respect to the ACLU:

But perhaps the most disturbing segment of this whole scare-mongering debacle was when Sensenbrenner ended his comments, and ended the floor debate, by talking about the American Civil Liberties Union. He said the ACLU is the guardian of the First Amendment. He said the ACLU has a proud history of being a constitutional watchdog. And he said he has a letter, from the ACLU, saying they would not oppose this legislation and had no substantial concerns, essentially giving the Green Scare a green light.

So, if the HJC DID NOT make the changes to the bill that the ACLU urged, Sensenbrenner, in failing to reveal this, is in effect, lying about the ACLU's position, is he not?

[keepCAblue]

6. I posted about this on DU a month ago...

I wrote my congresswoman, Zoe Lofgren, and got an email reply that was very non-committal. I'd sure like to see who voted for this!

Here's the essence of my post in early October:

There's a bill pending in the House that affects us all--not just animal activists. It strikes at the heart of the First Amendment.

The ACLU also has this on their site which you might want to read: http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/25620leg20060306.html

Please read the ASPCA's call to action and contact your representative urging their opposition to this bill.

********************
Email from the ASPCA, dated Oct. 4, 2006:

H.R. 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), is a bill that could make it a crime punishable by imprisonment to cause any business classified as an "animal enterprise" to suffer a loss of profit—even if the company's financial decline is the result of legal activities, such as peaceful protests, consumer boycotts or media campaigns. The term “animal enterprise� would include manufacturers, distributors and sellers of animals or animal products, research facilities, pet stores, breeders, zoos, rodeos, circuses, and animal shelters and the like.

While the ASPCA strongly opposes acts of violence, including vandalism, property damage and trespass, this bill threatens to criminalize as “terrorism� otherwise lawful, constitutionally protected acts often utilized by citizens and organizations to effect change. Lawful and peaceful protests that, for example, urge a consumer boycott of a company that does not use humane procedures, could be the target of this provision if the activity resulted in economic damage to the company.

The bill would also make it illegal to expose cruel conditions at facilities such as puppy mills and research labs, if exposure of such conditions—even if done lawfully—would result in economic damage to the animal enterprise. There is no exemption in the bill to exclude “economic damage� that results from the disclosure of information about a company’s treatment of animals, which is disclosed through public information.

The AETA has already been passed in the Senate, and a vote in the House is expected very soon. It is critical that you contact your representative immediately to show your opposition to H.R. 4239 and urge him or her to protect our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech by opposing H.R. 4239.
Take Action Now!

Thank you for your support on this issue.

[evilkumquat]

7. I'm Proud to Call Myself a Bleeding-Heart Liberal...

...but I am all for anything that helps contain PeTA and the terrorist groups (like ALF) they support.

One's First Amendment rights end as soon as that molotov cocktail gets thrown.

Evil Kumquat

[keepCAblue]

10. This bill goes far beyond stifling PETA n/t

[robinlynne]

11. molotov cocktail. who the hell throws molotov cocktails?

Peta exposes cruelty to animals. no bombs.

[flvegan]

15. You should add "Ignorant" to that which you are proud to call yourself.

PETA? Terrorist groups? Oh, please. You didn't read the bill, did you? You don't know much about PETA, do you?

[VeggieTart]

17. Excuse me, but this fucking bill means that I am a terrorist.

If I participate in a vegan feed-in, a protest outside the Ringling Brothers circus, a die-in--where all I do is ask people to eat less meat or not go to a circus with animals or lie on the ground with a bunch of people pretending to be dead (like the animals)--I am a terrorist. This is if I take part in peaceful protest. If I am handing out leaflets or free vegan food. I would never, ever take part in a violent protest, nor countenance them because they are wrong. I hate it when the anti-choice mooks engage in vandalism, and it is likewise unacceptable to do so for the animals.

I want my First fucking Amendment back, you Congressional assholes! I want it back NOW!!

[keepCAblue]

19. Exposing animal cruelty inside a puppy mill is now an act of terrorism

By simply EXPOSING animal cruelty within a puppy mill or research lab, if that leads to lost profits or revenue, will now constitute an act of terrorism. Thanks, congress. You effing morons.

[Xithras]

28. I'm reading the bill, and I'm not seeing that.

Pardon me while I scratch my head a bit.

According to the bill, you are in violation if:

1) Your purpose has to be the deliberate interference with the animal enterprise.

AND (choose 1)

A) You intentionally damage, destroy, or vandalize property belonging to an animal enterprise.

B) Threaten harm or death to people involved with animal enterprises or their families and partners. Harm is even narrowly defined to limit it to physical injury.

C) Conspire or attempt to perform A or B.

The lost revenue portion of the bill only kicks in if the person is in violation of the requirements above.

[keepCAblue]

34. Here is the ASPCA's statement...

H.R. 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), is a bill that could make it a crime punishable by imprisonment to cause any business classified as an "animal enterprise" to suffer a loss of profit ”even if the company's financial decline is the result of legal activities, such as peaceful protests, consumer boycotts or media campaigns. The term "animal enterprise" would include manufacturers, distributors and sellers of animals or animal products, research facilities, pet stores, breeders, zoos, rodeos, circuses, and animal shelters and the like.

While the ASPCA strongly opposes acts of violence, including vandalism, property damage and trespass, this bill threatens to criminalize as "terrorism" otherwise lawful, constitutionally protected acts often utilized by citizens and organizations to effect change. Lawful and peaceful protests that, for example, urge a consumer boycott of a company that does not use humane procedures, could be the target of this provision if the activity resulted in economic damage to the company.

The bill would also make it illegal to expose cruel conditions at facilities such as puppy mills and research labs, if exposure of such conditions -- even if done lawfully -- would result in economic damage to the animal enterprise. There is no exemption in the bill to exclude economic damage that results from the disclosure of information about a company's treatment of animals, which is disclosed through public information.

[Xithras]

39. Interesting, but I'm still not seeing it.

Reading the actual text of the law, I don't see that...and I speak legalese fluently. Every one of the economic damages provisions begins with "Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a)..."

So the economic damages portion of the bill only kicks in if you violate the criminal activities portion of the bill, and those portions relate to physical injury, threats, and property destruction. If I were to walk into a Foster Farms plant and take pictures of their cruel cages, I don't see how it could be reasonably argued that I'd damaged their physical property or physically injured or threatened their employees. The economic damages segment to the House bill clearly requires that the damages occur in the course of committing some sort of physical assault on the company or its employees.

Since we've already established that the bills have been rewritten with the input of the ACLU and ASPCA, is it possible that the statement refers to an earlier version? I also discovered that the Senate version was essentially rewritten by Dianne Feinstein following her meetings with the ACLU. When I read the actual bill, I'm not seeing the dire situation that many people are projecting here. Could these issues have already been resolved?

[yewberry]

44. I'm not sure that I agree.

Subsection (a) refers to anyone who "intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise."

Isn't the reference "causes the loss" vague? If (in a very simplistic example) I videotape a man beating a breeding dog and that dog is removed from that man's care, am I not causing that loss? Please--I'm not trying to be exasperating--is that not too vague?

Also, would you please point me to where we've established that the ACLU & the ASPCA had inout in this bill? I think I missed that.

Thanks.

[Xithras]

46. Legally, its clear enough.

This is well established by legal precedent. If you report an abuser and the pet is taken by animal control, it's animal control that caused the loss, not you. There is zero legal precedent to indicate that someone reporting a legitimate violation of the law caused a "loss", and there is no text in this act that attempts to redefine loss to mean anything of the sort.

If loss could be interpreted the way you suggest, our courts would be swamped with civil cases as everyone accused of a crime would be suing everyone who reported them. Loss isn't being redefined in the bill, so existing definitions must be used.

As for the establishment of ACLU involvement, it was referred to in other posts involving the judiciary committee hearings and comments made on the House floor. Dianne Feinstein apparently worked with the ACLU on the Senate version as well.

[keepCAblue]

52. Kucinich, and many others, would disagree with you.

There are already laws covering the crimes allegedly committed by animal rights extremists (i.e., vandalism, arson, damage to property, etc.). Beyond these laws, the AEPA (Animal Enterprise Protection Act) explicitly covers interstate crimes committed by such groups. The AETA (Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act), on the other hand, was created with the purpose of dangerously broadening the scope of who can now be defined as a "terrorist". Here are some notes from yesterday's House session, including Kucinich's comments:

Only Representative Dennis Kucinich spoke up against this dangerous legislation. “This bill was written to have a chilling effect,” he said, “on a specific type of protest.” He also said that, “We have to be very careful of painting everyone with broad brush of terrorism.” And, in an interesting spin on the debate, Kucinich said lawmakers would be better off addressing animal issues and demonstrating their compassion.

He also raised what’s essentially a very conservative argument about the bill preempting existing law. A section of the bill says it shall not be construed

(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this action, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies.

Kucinich noted that that’s precisely what the bill does. It provides exclusive penalties based on the beliefs of those who are accused.

Kucinich got in a little back and forth with James Sensenbrenner about the bill, with Sensenbrenner repeatedly citing a provision of the bill that “exempts” First Amendment activity. (Thank you to Senenbrenner and our patriotic members of Congress for reminding us that their is still a First Amendment. However, saying “this is Constitutional!” doesn’t make it so. If anything, it’s an admission that the bill has serious flaws.) At one point, Sensenbrenner read off a list of quotes from animal activists that he said exemplified the targets of the legislation. It was the same tired old list of quotes from the mid-90s and from a fairly recent Congressional hearing. Kucinich promptly noted that the quotes were exactly that: “Constitutionally-protected speech.” It’s misleading, he said, to say the bill exempts First Amendment activity, then use First Amendment activity as an example of why the bill is needed.

[flvegan]

21. They should ask the pitbull in my living room.

Took her away from a breeder that was using her as bait for fighting dogs. But she was a breeder. I hurt his profits.

You and me both, VeggieTart. I'm a terrorist, too.

Thanks, you dirty, spineless fucks.

[everythingsxen]

26. I don't call myself a bleeding heart liberal....

I do call myself a flesh-eating being of ultimate horror.

However, I do support the work of PeTA and organizations that help animals. While I do not actively support groups like the ALF, I do understand where they are coming from and admire their devotion to helping animals, though I do not generally approve of their methods.

While it may seem an oxymoron that I support animal rights and yet am not a vegan, it's not all that hard to understand. I usually try to get meat that is kosher/halal(sp?) which means that it is supposed to be killed humanely and will have lived a good life before ending up on my plate. I also try to only get eggs that are cage free no hormone etc.

Just because I like meat doesn't mean an animal should have to suffer horribly for it.

[yewberry]

29. That's it, you're not invited to Thanksgiving this year!

Seriously, I don't think that there's anything oxymoronic about eating meat and at the same time caring about animal cruelty. I really think that most people don't want institutionalized cruelty, and many will try to change it when they see that it is happening.

That's the thing that pisses me off the most about this legislation (aside from the "terrorism" label and pursuant prosecution)--it criminalizes the act of making cruelty public. That footage of the workers at the Tyson plant throwing live chickens against the wall? Now, the person who made that footage available is a terrorist and may be prosecuted as such.

[everythingsxen]

33. Yeah..

This legislation is assinine.

[Raine]

30. Self-deleted

[evilkumquat]

55. Penn & Teller's Bullshit! - Season Two, Episode One

The producers of Bullshit! did an excellent expose on PeTA, showing just where their dollars go while showing just how hypocritical this organization is.

Among the more telling points:

PeTA provided direct financial support to a convicted arsonist who was too gutless to appear for the cameras.
PeTA personally euthanizes hundreds of animals each year while simultaneously protesting in front of governmental organizations that do the same thing (i.e., humane shelters).
PeTA clearly states they are against absolutely ALL animal testing, while at the same time having a second-in-command who uses diabetic medication derived as a direct result of such testing. When presented with the inherent hypocrisy, the PeTA official said she needed to keep HER life in order to fight for the rights of animals.

Evil Kumquat

[keepCAblue]

56. This debate isn't about PETA. Lotsa people distrust PETA

As has been stated numerous times throughout this thread, this bill affects everyone, not just groups like PETA or ALF. As Dennis Kucinich stated yesterday on the House floor: “This bill was written to have a chilling effect on a specific type of protest.” He also said that, “We have to be very careful of painting everyone with broad brush of terrorism.”

If you're looking to start a flame war on PETA, then by all means start a new thread. I and many others would be happy to join you. This thread, however, is NOT about PETA, but about the danger of singling out a particular group of people with a common belief or interest (i.e., animal advocacy) and erecting special (read: McCarthyistic) legislation to paint them all as terrorists.

[gerrilea]

13. As I was listening to the debate on C-span the problem is this

The law has certain protections in it not to abridge free speech, the problem is that you can still be charged under this law and must spend all your resources and years of your life "proving" that what you were doing was "protected" under 1st admendment

As I understand what I listened to...we have laws that protect people against violence and violent crimes already...this law makes a "special class" of animal rights advocates and they can be charged if someone's profits are hurt by their protesting...

This is the part that scares me...anyone connected to animal enterprises(banks, etc.) can now have animal protesters arrested under federal law if their profits are hurt...

We've now made it illegal to hurt businesses' profits...! Tell me that this law won't be used in the future as a back drop to arrest people protesting or just suggest boycotting a business...such as a few months ago here at DU people were suggesting that we don't buy our gasoline from Exxon Mobil...

Dennis Kucnich was the only person that stood up and agrued against this bill...on the grounds that it was designed to "stiffle" free speech...despite the "so called" protections included in it...

[Marie26]

22. Sounds like the "fruit libel" laws

Remember when Oprah said she wouldn't eat hamburgers & she was sued by all those Texas cattle ranchers? And why is the word "terrorism" now included the old Animal Enterprise Protection Act? Is terrorism anything that Republicans don't like?

[keepCAblue]

14. Just called Rep. Zoe Lofgren's office

Asked how she voted on this bill. After much delay, her office aide said the bill was passed by a voice vote, that no roll call was taken.

And thus our elected officials slither away without taking any accountability for passing this bill.

I'm fucking pissed.

[jody]

18. Looks like Sierra Club's opposition to CAFOs could be included.

Sierra Club info on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)

The bill could easily be used by huge agri-businesses to destroy First Amendment rights.

[BadgerKid]

20. This will silence those who gripe about little mad cow testing. n/t

[Jcrowley]

24. This harkens back to "Food Slander" laws

These are all part of the mythical "war on terror" and anything that threatens corporate profits is deemed "terrorism."

Flashback:

There are 13 states in the USA which currently have passed anti-free speech, anti-activist food slander laws:
Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan (passed just last week), Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas.

"Food Slander" Is Now a Crime

by Gar Smith

On August 17, a group of activists dumped a mixture of Diet Coke, NutraSweet (aspartame) and rBGH-enhanced milk (produced from cows injected with genetically engineered hormones) onto the pavement at Atlanta's Cheshire Bridge Shopping Center.

The demonstration, sponsored by the Pure Foods Campaign (PFC), took its inspiration from the Boston Tea Party. But while dumping tea was considered a patriotic act in Boston Harbor, dumping soda, sweetener and milk is considered a crime in Georgia.

"Food slander" laws, in force in Georgia and at least ten other states, make it a civil crime to denigrate or criticize food products without a "scientific basis," explained PFC coordinator Ronnie Cummings. "Industry lobbyists admit that these laws are probably unconstitutional... their real purpose is to intimidate activists and concerned consumers."

http://www.organicconsumers.org/slancrime.html

[gerrilea]

25. And Combine this with the Military Commissions Act...you are "dissappeared"

You're gone forever...you've been deemed a terrorist...period...as per this law...they could use it against anyone just reporting the facts of what goes on...anywhere on anything...say you find a "finger in your chili"...

Scary times guys and gals...here in the "land of the free"...AND I was rejoicing that the Dems won back the congress...

Since the bill that passed was out of a senate and house committee and is considered to be bipartian...probably there is no hope in getting it repealed in the 110th congress...

I'm coming to the realization that we truly have lost our country and constitution...forever...

I did have hope...for almost a week...that we could get it back...:think:

[Raine]

32. The animal exploiters get their way

and anyone who speaks up against cruelty is labeled a terrorist. :wtf:

[flvegan]

38. Finally found a link...

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/16004312.htm

Posted in LBN, as well.

[Zodiak]

41. This bill protects everyone connected to animal enterprises, too

Insurance companies, contractors, lawyers, etc.

So all that any company needs to do if they are protesting is donate or invest some money to an "animal enterprise" and they get to put their protestors in jail for terrorism.

By the way, has anyone died or been seriously injured by animal activists before? Is this a real problem?

I am just diappointed that the Democrats did nothing at all. Nothing but Dennis Kucinich, that is. Good to know that free speech has 1/535 representation when the ugly terrorism word is mentioned.

Our legislature is a den of thieves and cowards.

[Hidden Stillness]

42. This is Republicans' Attempt to Kill the Animal Rights Movement Itself

I heard Dennis Kucinich making some wonderful arguments against this travesty of a bill today (Monday) on C-SPAN, on the floor of the House; it seems to be one of the last of the "corporate pay-offs" of the departing Republican sleaze. This bill is a revived version of something that passed several years ago and that they are now strengthening, and bizarrely tying to "terrorism." Kucinich, who has a wonderful record on animal rights issues, as well as environmental and genetically modified foods issues, made an important point about the way this bill is worded. It specifically targets ordinary animal rights protesters, and gives heavy penalties, the like of which has never happened before. They would not be charged with vandalism (if appropriate) or trespassing, etc., but would get heavy fines and sentences, as if they had attacked sensitive sites and caused injuries, like actual terrorists. They are targeted specifically. This would destroy the ability of people who want to protest and stop the activities of (as Kucinich gave the example) factories using cruel testing on animals for commercial product research. It is a blatant and heavy-handed attempt to kill the right of citizens to protest anything the corporate bastard does, and, although it claims not to, it does specifically target animal rights activists; it is bizarre, and must be un-Constitutional. It is an attempt to intimidate.

Also, this wouldn't be the first time the ACLU has done or advocated something incomprehensibly stupid, which is why I never even pay any attention to them, ever since they defended anti-abortion terrorists, against the right of clinic patients to be safe.

http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/219147

[paganlib]

45. This is a bizarre bill..........

and I think there's a big potential for abuse. Why the push to possibly label animal rights activist as terrorist?

[OneBlueSky]

47. the day is fast approaching when ANYTHING the government -- . . .

or, more specifically, corporations -- doesn't like will be labeled "terrorism" . . .

I pray that the new Democratic Congress will put a stop to this trend, and reverse some of the horrendous legislation already passed by BushCo and their Congressional toadies . . .

[NMMNG]

48. This is such BS

Notice how they've expanded the definition of "terrorism". Now activities that impede corporate moneymaking are terrorism. This is Neoconism at its very core. Fundies bombing abortion clinics and gay bars are just run of the mill criminals, but animal rights activists holding signs or signing petitions that result in some mega-corporation losing a few dollars are terrorists.

Bloody insane. :banghead:

[JudyM]

51. Great: don't pass hate crimes legislation to protect gays but pass something far stronger to protect

corporate pain-inflictors.

I hope the Ag Dept is exempt from this in case they find cases of grossly inhumane treatment...

:mad:

[Beaverhausen]

54. This wouldn't pass the House after January. Damn. This must get repealed

[Crim_n al]

57. Every Democrat who voted supported this bill.

There were no votes against it at all!

So what on earth makes you believe the Democrats will suddenly change their tune in January?
Nothing will be repealed, nothing will change.

...not even the eternal wishful thinking that Gog may not be the mirror image of MaGog.

I do sympathise though. I know what it's like to need to hang onto hope.

:hug: :hug:

[Beaverhausen]

59. oh. shit

[keepCAblue]

60. It passed the House in a voice vote...no roll call taken.

H.R. 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act(AETA),
was brought to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in a
fast-track maneuver late yesterday, on the Representatives’ first day back
after the month-long break.

The House passed AETA by a voice vote under suspension of the rules, a
procedure usually reserved for non-controversial legislation. When the
bill came up for consideration, only a handful of House members were
even back in town, and very few were on the floor of the House when the
brief discussion ensued. This bill was rushed through without a serious
look at its flaws, by Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Sensenbrenner
(R-WI).

So much for the b.s. that "there were no votes against it at all." This was another one of those slimy rethuglican maneuvers to sneak through passage of yet another bill aimed at protecting corporate america at the expense of citizens' freedom of speech and civil liberties.

[keepCAblue]

61. What are you tallking about? Did you even watch the House session?

Kucinich--a DEMOCRAT--stood up in opposition to this bill! Get your facts straight, please.

[Crim_n al]

62. You are right. ONE Democrat in one house spoke against it.

"9/30/2006 ..... Passed/agreed to in Senate:
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN03880:@@@L&summ2=m&

One Democrat ... out of how many?

[keepCAblue]

63. There were only a handful of reps present during the voice vote

Sensenbrenner rushed the voice vote before many reps had even returned to DC. There were all of six reps--six out of 435--on the floor at the time of the voice vote, ensuring its passage. Sensenbrenner deliberately held this vote with hardly anyone present and under suspension of rules--a typical rethuglican strategy--to guarantee this flawed bill's passage. Moveover, Sensenbrenner intentionally misled those few reps who were present with false claims of the ACLU's approval of the bill. What he FAILED to mention was the ACLU letter which he referenced was CONDITIONAL upon making several changes in the bill's wording--changes which were not made.

If you want to blame someone for this bill's passage, don't blame the dems (most of whom were not even aware this bill was coming up for vote), blame Sensenbrenner. Also, note that Rep. Sensenbrenner, who had the AETA fasttracked and was a major supporter, is the same Rep. who kept the dogfighting bill making it a felony to transport fighting dogs across state lines as well as chicken fighting paraphrenalia from coming to a vote before the Congress adjourned. In fact, Sensenbrenner has blocked every animal protection bill before his committee this year.

[Annces]

58. I put my hope in the fact that they are desperate

at the the growing opposition to maltreatment of animals and this will go by the wayside.

They make these kinds of laws, because people are having to much impact with their protests.

[The Stranger]

64. Perusing this thread proved interesting. Questions:

I suppose there may be questions about whether the ACLU opposed something, but why continue with the questions even when the ACLU web site shows its opposition?

I suppose there may be internal conflicts at the ACLU, but who is funding the airing of these conflicts and attacks on the integrity of the ACLU itself? Who is funding the web site featuring those attacking the ACLU?

In times like these, one must really wonder.