Today four Northern California animal rights activists await Federal criminal trial for ghastly crimes including leaving a stack of leaflets in a cafe, chalking slogans on pavement, and chanting. Oh, and using the internet to locate the individuals they were protesting. Yes, the world’s only superpower can’t be bothered to defend us against banksters’ usury or death from want of health care, but when it comes to leaflets in cafes, chalked slogans, and Google searches, they’re here for us. To shut us up.
Each proscribed and terrifying act of handing out leaflets, chanting, chalking, or — gasp — Googling is now a Federal crime, punishable by up to five years in Federal prison. How did the Homeland’s security police make speech a crime? They used AETA, the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act: the law that makes America’s civil rights movement a Federal crime.
Who wrote AETA and bribed pushed it through Congress? ALEC, the American Legislative Enterprise Council: the megacorps’ mega-lobby group that includes Pharma and the drive-through diabetes junk food industry. Why do Homeland Security and ALEC want to defy our Constitution and destroy our civil rights?
Oh, the usual reason: freedom’s bad for capital. Our civil rights and our Constitution might somehow someday mean some bankster or CEO may get a smaller bonus. Now that’s worth destroying a democracy for, right?
Yesterday the Civil Liberties Defense Center and the Center For Constitutional Rights joined defense counsel for the four arrestees (the AETA 4) in petitioning the US District Court for Northern California to strike down the Animal Enterprise Act as unconstitutional.
Damn good thing, too. The San Jose Mercury News reports the AETA 4’s alleged crimes include:
Oct. 21, 2007: A group of 20 protesters demonstrated outside of a UC Berkeley professor’s home in El Cerrito. Some wore bandanas to hide their faces. They trespassed on his front yard, chanted slogans and accused him of being a murderer because of his use of animals in research.
Jan. 27, 2008: Demonstrations, including chalking, in front of the homes of several UC researchers
July 29, 2008: Fliers left at Caffe Pergolesi in Santa Cruz that contained the names, addresses and telephone numbers of several UCSC scientists. The fliers said the researchers were "murders and torturers alive and well in Santa Cruz" and stated "We know where you live. We know where you work. We will never back down until you end your abuse."
Though taking protests to people’s homes is a tactic many folks find unacceptable, many other Americans choose to exercise their right to peaceably assemble and protest in residential neighborhoods, as well as outside of offices and factories. This form of public speech is as old as the Republic, and as recent as public protests outside of banksters’ estates.
Is trespass a crime? Yep, and under California law, it can be prosecuted. Are assault and battery and attempted forcible entry crimes under California law? Yep, and those too may be prosecuted. California’s been prosecuting people for violence before Carter marketed little pills. Nothing in AETA is required to prosecute the following alleged crime:
Feb. 20, 2008: A group of five protesters tried to forcibly enter the Westside home of a UC Santa Cruz researcher during a child’s birthday party. The researcher’s husband was hit during the demonstration.
I’ll never support violence or home invasions, but AETA isn’t about prohibiting those acts. AETA’s about prohibiting speech and public advocacy: that’s why protest and chalking and chanting and fliers are specific acts of allegedly criminal content. Because AETA sez so. And our trusty Federal minders have decided they want to enforce the corporatist law that makes speech a crime.
They have plenty of company in their corporate servitude. When ALEC wanted to make effective civil disobedience against megacorps a crime, their carefully bribed servants hired hands in Congress gave them exactly what they wanted:
Virginia Representative Bobby Scott-often called the "go-to-guy" in the House on civil liberties and civil rights issues-came out swinging in support of the "ecoterrorism" bill. Scott, a Democrat, said that existing laws have been "reasonably effective," but "gaps and loopholes" prevent law enforcement from going after animal rights "extremists."
[snip]
Disturbingly, Scott said in passing that civil disobedience could be covered in the bill-which some other supporters of the bill have denied-but he tried to ease public fears by saying that the civil disobedience would have to cause disruption and loss of profits to qualify, and that "it must be proven that such losses were specifically intended." The same congressman who frequently praises the achievements of the civil rights movement is suddenly standing on the House floor and advocating the inclusion of that movement’s tactics in a "terrorism" bill.
Gee, so Representative Scott now only wants America to allow protests whose organizers don’t expect to disrupt business profits…say, by sitting for hours at a lunch counter without being served. Thanks for pulling up the ladder behind you, Congressman Scott.
As they showed back when they rubber-stamped the Patriot Act and confirmed last week when they pretended the MP’s at Leavenworth couldn’t handle Gitmo detainees, the vast majority of what pass for our Congresscritters are rank cowards who piss themselves whenever opponents brand them "soft on terror". Same thing the vast majority of their predecessors did when the corporatists’ Mighty Wurlitzer screamed "soft on commies", and later "soft on crime".
The only thing that can make them betray their oath to protect and uphold the Constitution faster are the bribes campaign contributions the American Legislative Exchange Council’s megacorp owners eagerly provide. Hey – thanks to their prior "donations", it’s all tax-deductible. Shredding our Constitution for the corporatists – such a deal.
Don’t you just love those patriots at ALEC – and the one-third of ALEC’s legislative members who are Democrats? People For The American Way have more on ALEC’s mission:
ALEC’s agenda includes rolling back civil rights, challenging government restrictions on corporate pollution, limiting government regulations of commerce, privatizing public services, and representing the interests of the corporations that make up its supporters.
Who could have anticipated? Well, anyone who watched what happened after ALEC’s sponsors wrote AETA’s parent, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. The Center For Constitutional Rights watched what happened with AEPA:
The AEPA was put on the books in 1992 by well-funded industries that exploit animals. Proponents of the AEPA argued that the number of violent attacks committed by so-called animal rights extremists on farming and research facilities was escalating, and that the AEPA was necessary to protect these facilities. They claimed that (1) existing state & federal laws had failed to curtail such acts, and (2) these attacks disrupted vital services relied on by millions of Americans. Despite these assertions, the language of the AEPA swept up constitutionally-protected free speech activities, even though legislators believed they had struck a balance between the right to protest and the need to provide additional criminal penalties for violent acts. Despite the claims of the corporate interests that this law was vital, the law has only been used twice during the last 16 years.
In one of those two uses, our brave servants in Federal law enforcement prosecuted the "SHAC 7" — six activists and a non-profit (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA Inc.) — for the crime of posting information about animal rights protests on the internet. The activists covered a global campaign against a private firm, Huntington Life Sciences, that contracts to perform hideous painful animal testing for cosmetics manufacturers, but were not direct participants in other folks’ illegal actions against HLS.
In January DOJ attorneys sword to uphold the Constitution told the Third Circuit Court of Appeals the SHAC activists convictions must be upheld. Why?
Will Potter of Green Is The New Red reported on the hearing.
Perhaps the most disturbing element of the appeal was hearing the government speak so candidly and succinctly about what kind of conduct should be prosecuted.
For instance, Darius Fullmer was a leader of the Animal Defense League in New Jersey. He sent emails to the defendants saying that, although his group is focused on anti-fur campaigning, he will try to get people to start showing up at protests. He also forwarded a SHAC email to his members which describe "Black Fax Mondays" (electronic civil disobedience where activists fax black pieces of paper to the targeted company, in hopes of draining their toner cartridges and tying up their fax machine lines.)
"That’s his embrace," Moramarco said. "That one document is sufficient evidence."
Similarly, Josh Harper made two speeches in which he supported the "black fax" tactic. One was to a local group in Seattle, the other was to activists in Little Rock. Those speeches, the government said, are enough for a conviction. Two speeches. Three years in prison.
Moramarco stretched even further in the case of Lauren Gazzola. He pointed to a radio interview in which Gazzola says, "We support property destruction, we support illegal action, we support home demonstrations and economic sabotage."
In what might have been the boldest, most chilling argument made by the government in this case, Moramarco said that such a statement of her political beliefs and her personal views, such a statement about which tactics she believes are effective, was "tantamount to a confession."
Wonder if US Asst. Attorney Glenn J. Moramarco went to law school wanting to prosecute thought crimes, or if that’s something he only picked up in the Bushie DOJ?
We’re lucky that Lauren Regan and the CLDC together with the good folks at CCR stepped forward yesterday. Let’s hope they can persuade Federal Courts to uphold the same Constitution that most of the Congress would so eagerly destroy.
"A Republic, if you can keep it."
Good luck.
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Who said John Ashcroft was gone? Bah!
Hi Kirk
(knowing the answer before even looking:)
Joseph P. Russoniello[1] (born October 12, 1941 in Jersey City, New Jersey) is an American attorney currently serving his second term as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California after being appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate in 2007. Russoniello served his first term from 1982 to 1990 after being appointed by President Ronald Reagan and confirmed by the United States Senate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Russoniello
knock me over with a feather.
so why hasn’t Obama asked for letters of resignation from each and every USA in the country? Isn’t that customary?
thank you kirk. great post.
Hi newtonusr, jayt, and selise – thanks to all of you for stopping by!
Great question, and great pick-up.
i just want to add that the AETA was passed by unanimous consent in the senate and by a voice vote in the house.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/…..03880:@@@X
fucking cowards the lot of them.
….hearing the government speak so candidly and succinctly about what kind of conduct should be prosecuted.
Gandhi would have been executed.
The AETA’ schedule of increasingly long prison sentences for what amount to trivial fractions of the megacorps’ cash stream for any successful protest affecting “animal enterprises” makes draconian look soft and cuddly.
good point.
“Let’s see… Small Claims Court, or do we call for Federal Prosecution?”
Disrupting business profits is a major purpose of protesting commercial enterprises. It may be the only act that gets either the manufacturer or the government’s attention, necessary to make needed change.
It’s why fast food and agri-meat producers wanted to make speakers liable in damages even when making truthful, accurate statements about their products. Such as that frequently ingesting large doses of fatty meat and a chemical goo called “processed cheese food” is bad for your McHealth. Or that an animal raised in a stall on antibiotics, growth hormones, and artificial food is not really “organic” because it eats organic grain for a week before it goes to the abattoir.
Of course protesting harmful commercial enterprises affects profits. That’s the point.
Harnessing the criminal law, too, on top of the law of defamation to immunize enterprises from the harmful consequences of their products is harnessing the power of the state against its own citizens in order to protect private profits. That’s a defining characteristic of fascism.
and you’re doing a heckuva job, Eric Holder.
But it’s a kind of backyard “terrorism” to threaten corporate profits. Threatening citizen’s health through tainted foods or bad air or false, deceptive advertising (depriving consumers of an informed choice)? Not a problem. We used to laugh at the Swiss for making it state treason to expose the secrets of a private Swiss corporations. The gnomes got nuthin’ on K Street.
Americans slaughter billions of animals each year. And these animals have feelings and suffer.
Lovely.
Will Potter at Green Is The New Red covered AETA penalties in detail.
Penalty for conviction where no injury or economic damge occured? Up to one year in prison.
Here’s Will:
The penalties section of AETA is like a Christmas list for industry groups, making the penalties in AEPA look tame by comparison. AEPA spelled out that an individual who causes less than $10,000 in economic damage could be imprisoned up to six months, and someone who causes more than $10,000 in economic damage could be imprisoned up to three years.
Earlier versions of AETA, though, started out with penalties for non-violent civil disobedience, and worked their way up.
That’s right: “non-violent physical obstruction,” also known as civil disobedience, could earn an activist 18 months in prison, plus fines, in a terrorism bill. This was one of the biggest concerns I raised when I testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the legislation. In the final version, the phrase “exclusively a non-violent physical obstruction” was removed. But the first segment of the sentencing section still spells out penalties of
Remember, we’re looking at a terrorism bill here, one that industry groups say is needed to combat “violent” animal rights “extremists,” and we’re only dealing with non-violent crimes that don’t even “instill” a “reasonable fear.” [snip]
Totally agree.
From Moyers last night:
At Chap 8, Secrets.
Evenin’, Kirk. Outstanding post, as usual.
yep. but it’s stuff like this – when the votes are unanimous, that brings home how pervasive the corruption is.
damn. i hope the salon is late in the week, or i’m not going to be able to catch up with you.
Hey SD, spent the day with beaucoup MRF’s folks.
Thought crimes are next.
I mean, shouldn’t we preventively detain people who might act against the megacorps in the future? Isn’t thinking about disrupting a profit stream as bad as advocating its disruption?
Gotta watch out for dem crazy River Rats.
Obama’s already talkin’ “prolonged detention.”
Can’t get away from it. Reads like a damn thriller in some parts.
There was plenty of crazy to go around, squids, doggies, jar-heads and zoomies!
Greider goes through the silver bubble in 79-80 and the Hunt brothers’ attempt to corner the market. I was living in Corvallis, OR and a lot of us were buying silver coins, dimes and quarters, by weight. Made a few bucks.
hopefully monday i’ll get to do a lot of reading. that is unless the weather is as fine as it was today. i love spring.
Sun came out about noon, turned out to be a beautiful day here as well. Have to work Monday. Gonna read Harvey and Marx tomorrow.
friend of mine in central fl (not too far from you iirc) told me today there’s been a lot of rain recently (after a prolonged dry spell) and everything, especially the weeds, are growing like crazy.
Here are more details about AETA’s penalties: rapidly escalating imprisonment for what amount to relatively trivial economic consequences for megacorps.
If I coordinated a national day of sit-ins – or hell, even a California wide day of sit-ins – at home improvement stores or fast food chains cause they were destroying ancient forests or tormenting farm workers (or both, if they have half a chance) and I caused less than $100,000 lost slaes, I’d have failed.
And AETA would let the DOJ and the holdover Bushie USAs we all know and love threaten me and everyone else involved with up to five years in Federal prison.
If we caused a puny $100,002 in lost sales, our firnedly neigborhood USA’s could threaten us all with ten years in Federal prison.
Now that GM’s apparently going bye-bye, is the DOJ’s new motto “What’s good for Burger King is good for America”?
AETA:
good night too all.
thanks again to kirk for a great post.
*g* 5+ year drought. Frequent caller to WMNF is from Land o’Lakes and now says Land of No Lakes.
Is it 1984 yet?
HI SD- thanks. How nice to see you here!
g’nite, selise – good sleep!
Been on a reading jag for a while. Doin’ more lurkin’ than commentin’.
It all started with the spotted owl and the repugs made such a big deal…..the problem is one group started with violence….fires, damage to property…..
Yep.
Just a few days ago, our President for Change let human rights organizers know he wants to make a safe place in America…for thought crimes prisoners.
Hi katymine – welcome!
came back to ask a question that just occurred to me:
what would be the penalties imposed for the damage done at the boston tea party? i understand a lot of tea was pitched into the sea?
Double standard in the application of the law. If an individual or group of individuals burns down a business for the insurance or a dwelling for whatever reason it’s called arson. If the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) burns down a research facility under construction it’s called domestic terrorism.
sd @ 31 – my friend was hit by three hurricanes in one season about 5 years ago, so i think it took a while to before the drought registered.
ok, now i’m really off….
I’ve been off for years.
Great question!
I guess we’d need to know the reported value of the tea destroyed and then find a kind econ person to translate that into 2009 dollars.
I’ll be very surprised if that civil disobedience against corporate misrule cost less than $100,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Dr. Murphy:
I assume you also condemn similar laws used against anti-abortion protesters who engage in similar conduct.
Do you feel the fliers in this case are sufficiently distinguishable from the “Nuremberg Files” website that listed and excoriated abortion providers? Or do you disagree with the Ninth Circuit en banc decision that found that expression a true threat unprotected by the First Amendment?
” Each proscribed and terrifying act of handing out leaflets, chanting, chalking, or — gasp — Googling is now a Federal crime, punishable by up to five years in Federal prison. “
So are O’Reily and Beck going to stop ambushing Lefty”s or does this rule not apply to them somehow?
Does this apply to abortion clinics that get bombed?
Like the ones who:
assassinated a doctor from ambush with a high powered rifle or,
from ambush shotgunned a doctor and his wife in a parking garage or
detonated bombs at abortion clinics that killed and maimed folks?
Lot of difference between leafleting and murder.
Operative word in the comparison – arson
Popehat, I condemn all laws that penalize expression save for the very narrow area of speech conveying true and specific threats of physical violence against persons.
Writing out for you comparisons and contrasts of the content of the website you describe wth the alleged content of the fliers in the AETA 4 case isn’t an assignment I accept for this evening. Thanks for the invite, though!
It seemed that the ELF was huge in Oregon…..they burn those 5000 sq ft homes here in North Snottsdale……. Why regular laws cannot handle the crimes?
***note from behind the curtain*** thers is typing away frantically and late nite will be up shortly
sorry for the interruption doc. great post and thanks for bringing attention to this bullshit law.
No worries, Suz! I’d only meant to have this one finished a day before it was…we can sure wait a little bit here.
Glad you like the post, and I hope this bullshit law gets so embarrassing even Eric Holder won’t use it.
And I’d like a pony.
late nite upstairs
Thers is upstairs!
If you get into a jam with the courts maybe instead of taking credit for the companies loss you could ask the company to prove it wasn’t the economy causing the loss.
Pretty much every company you want to protest is losing money anyway.
They can but ELF and it’s twin the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) present an ideological threat to the corporations that do the research. The PTB wanted their acts of arson or freeing minks classified as federal crimes, subject to stiffer penalties than your run-of-the-mill arson or property destruction.
Thanks for coming by, folks, and for sharing your thoughts and ideas and questions. Look forward to checking back in after dinner.
Moreover,
Well, no. Not at all.
The statute criminalizes this conduct:
It also says, by the way:
The indictment in this case lists, as overt acts in support of the conspiracy, any number of things that taken in isolation would be protected by the First Amendment. You have specified some of them. Overt acts are not, themselves, crimes. Some federal conspiracy statutes have been interpreted to require an “overt act” — that is, an actual act towards the object of the conspiracy — rather than simply an abstract agreement to do something illegal. To the extent the statute requires it, the indictment must specify the overt act. Federal prosecutors tend to list overt acts in the indictment whether or not the particular conspiracy statute requires it, because it tells the story nicely.
You might believe that under the First Amendment an overt act cannot be protected by the First Amendment. If that is the case — and I’d be interested in seeing a case that says that — it’s a violation shared by most federal conspiracy statutes. Pick up any federal drug conspiracy indictment and you will see listed, as overt acts, phone calls, discussions, and other expressive acts that outside of the context of a conspiracy to do an unlawful act would be protected by the First Amendment.
I wouldn’t prejudge the defense’s motion to dismiss until I read it. Overbreadth and vagueness analysis are hellishly complicated. But I think they have an uphill struggle to make a facial challenge to the language quoted above. As to the as-applied challenge — that has a considerably better shot. I’d reserve judgment until I read that as well.
I was about to call shenangians on this ridiculously hyperbolic post, but Popehat got there first, and good for him.
Unlike Dr. Kirk, I actually went and read the text of the bill, and gasp, there’s a provision specificially exempting peaceful protests and picketing from the law.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it can’t be over broadly applied, but this post was obviously poorly researched and contains obvious, demonstrable falsehoods. It should be removed; it certainly doesn’t meet FDL standards.
It drives me stark raving mad when idiotic media say, “Operation Rescue and PETA both went to rivals’ personal homes. We covered both, so it is equal!”
As you said, one side is comprised of violence, and even MURDER, and the other one isn’t. Tell me again how they are the same?
Obviously some on the animal rights side are violent, as witnessed by the case of home invasion and assault in the main post.
Can you imagine how terrified those poor kids must have been, when a bunch of angry strangers bashed down the front door and assaulted the researcher’s husband?
Here, I’ll repost it:
Some of these people are, it must be said, real whackos.
You forgot the part about the pipe bombs and the fire bombing of the house of one of the people on the list that was left in pergolese. Let me see…Rush Limbaugh. Hate speech. Animal Rights Activists. Free Speech. Hmmm. let me think….
I’m all for civil disobedience and public protest.
I’m completely against home invasions and such.
Hang on the sidewalk, protest, fine.
Interfere with daily routines, block driveways, confront people ON their property not kewl.
Life is simple. Dont’ fuck it up.
You protest and get in someone’s face ON their property, you go to prison.
End of story.
You stay on the sidewalk, hold your vigil, and clean up after yerself . . . that’s civil disobedience.,
Likewise, you take to the streets, and support work stoppages? Rightous. Not imprisonable. In my mind.
AETA is still a sucky reg, and as Doc Murph is pointing out, the noose IS tightening on civil disobedience.
The RNC in ‘08 is proof of THAT.
Good read, good dialogue from both sides . . . I appreciate it all.
While the good Doctor may have a larger point about the noose tightening on civil disobedience, he is plainly and obviously in the wrong about AETA. He makes factual assertions that are plainly incorrect; the law does not in any way ban peaceful protest, passing out flyers, picketing, what have you.
I read FDL expecting higher standards than this post, and I bet you do as well. It took me under 2 minutes with The Great Gazoogle to pull up the actual text of the law, which is about a page long at any rate. There is just no excuse for this mess.
hc – or wing_zero__ew, if you please – thanks for stopping by again. I’m glad to find we have so much in common: affection for the Great Gazoogle.
I appreciate the depth of your concern for the FDL community.
May your concerns receive all the attention they deserve.
Popehat, thanks for the substantiative concerns you’ve raised. After a very comfortable dinner, I’ll be heading for bed before I have the chance to reply, but I look forward to being able to respond properly tomorrow.
[darn. clipped the end off #65. preview, preview, preview: peterr’s textual trinity. *g*]
Thanks, hc.
tradecraft, tradecraft, tradecraft
Nice cyberstalking, Dr. Murphy!
Nevermind that my comments on an unrelated personal website, not even my own but that of a friend, have absolutely zero bearing on Fire Dog Lake or its editorial standards.
That, in case you cannot read, is a Livejournal, a personal website where people often vent frustrations.
And yes, shockingly enough, I disagreed with some people here, and in many other places as well, and chose to say ‘….people’ instead of using a profanity. I thought that was more polite.
For the record, that ‘cesspit’ referred to that one particular comment thread, which was legitimately making me feel ill. Which should be obvious, as I didn’t in fact stop reading FDL. I did give up commenting and reading personal diaries for a time.
Enough about me though. Will you retract your statements about AETA now that they have been pointed out as patently false? Or do you only respond to criticism and correction with personal attack?
I disagree with Dr. Murphy’s assessment of the statute and, it appears, the prosecution.
But I find it strange to accuse him of cyberstalking for simply using Google when you were criticizing him for incorrectly saying that simply using Google had been made a crime.
But I have a notoriously underdeveloped sense of irony.
That’s true. Several people wearing bandannas trying to force their way into a house having a birthday party for children would terrify anyone, but I suppose that would be the point. If they did that, they belong in jail. http://www.mercurynews.com/bre…..i_11749353
However just because I have no sympathy for the accused in this case, does not mean that the law is Constitutional. Should a animal research scientist get more protection than a Dr. who performs abortions? Shouldn’t the law protect them equally? Shouldn’t protesters have an equal right to protest either of them?
I suppose cyberstalking might be too clinical of a term. Cyber-fixating?
At any rate, since I don’t want to drag my apolitical friends and acquaintances into this fight (any *further*), and I think we have both made the point that Dr. Murphy gets the facts fundamentally wrong in this post, I’m going to bow out now. I don’t have the time or patience to deal with a man who continues to shout that black is white, up is down, and so forth. AETA’s text is readily available online for all to see, and that should settle the matter.
We are all entitled to our own set of opinions; we are not entitled to our own set of facts.
As far as I know you can’t trespass on an abortion doctor’s home, bash in his or her front door, or vandalize their property either. I agree that they are underprotected in our society and that is unfortunate.
Like I said in 71, though, time for me to bow out of here.
“I look forward to being able to respond properly tomorrow.”
I don’t think Kirk will.
The AR movement is profoundly corrupt. They use animals as tools, along with blatant lies, to demonize people. They are so corrupt that they commonly lie to conceal the very thing they claim to oppose–painful exploitation of animals–to present a false dichotomy to the public. They are even worse than right-wing creationists in the lies they tell about biology.
And yes, they do engage in terrorism.
I’m especially struck by the contrast between the first case cited, which is about harassing university faculty, and Kirk’s desperate lumping of professors together with “corporatists.” He’s the mirror image of wingnuts on the right saying that hate crimes against gays and blacks don’t warrant special scrutiny under the law.
The activists were not charged with terrorism until right after another set of firebombings happened. In one of these a UCSC researcher’s house was firebombed at 5:40 am while the Professor his wife, and their 2 and 4 year old children were sleeping. They escaped out a second story fire escape. One of them was injured escaping and had to be briefly hospitalized. The people mentioned in this thread were not charged or listed as suspects. Maybe the authorities were trying to calm people down by showing they were “tough” on crime.
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_10136850
The British demanded 10,000 pounds as part of the Boston Harbour Act of 1774. That translates, with inflation, to about $1.5 million in todays dollars.
The British used other acts of violence to support an increase in legal actions against the rebellious colonists, for example, attacks upon excise men.
http://encarta.msn.com/media_4…..e_man.html
Popehat, thanks again for the substantiative questions you have raised.
Thanks also for pointing out the specific text added to AETA that purports to protect First Amendment activities.
Courtesy of the PIELC at U of Oregon’s law school (and later Will Potter at Green Is The New Red), I’ve been following the draft texts for AETA since before the House and Senate versions were reconciled. Though I’m quite familiar with the statement you’ve cited, legal writers from the New York Bar are one of many sources who did not find AETA’s purported protection of free speech to be meaningful. Moreover, as the purported protection is silent about sitdown pickets or other traditional non-violent protest techniques that are technically infractions (blocking entrances, blocking driveways, etc) and only adresses picketing, AETA appears to indeed lack any protection for non-violent protests that involve such minor infractions.
Here’s more from the NY Bar Association on HR 4239 (the House version of what became AETA):
[emphases mine - kjm]
That citation should have been NYC Bar association. My bad.
Hi Popehat – with this being a Sunday afternoon on a three day weekend, it’s quite possible the 24 hour comment window for this post will close before you or others with interest in the substantiative questions you raised have te opportunity rejoin the discussion. Should that happen, I’m hoping future posts about AETA at FDL and/or Oxdown will afford you the chance to share your responses.
With respect to this point:
Thank you for making the clear distinction between overt acts and indictable acts (if “acts” is the correct term, no snark intended). Though I do not doubt your assessment, other sources apparently state that the AETA 4 are charged with crimes for expressive acts:
The first is the San Jose Mercury News
In the title of their May 21, 2009 announcement, CLDC and CCR appear to state the activists were indicted for leafletting and internet research:
(URL not available)
With no snark intended, if I’ve misconstrued the legal significance of what the Mercury News reported and what CLDC/CCR assert, I of course apologize for that error and thank you for pointing it out. Again, with no snark intended, as IANAL, I’d love to be able to know directly from the CLDC and CCR if I misconstrued their findings.
With respect to what AETA criminalizes, here’s what the NLG concluded (as of 11/7/06) regarding HR 4239, the House version of AETA:
[emphasis mine - kjm]
Dr. Murphy:
I appreciate your participation in a dialogue with someone who dissents from the prevailing message of your post. It’s rare on the left or the right.
A couple of responses:
1. The NY Bar commentary you post raises a few different critiques of the statute than the sites you previously linked. One such critique seems to be that the statute is improperly content-based because it only punishes such speech in the context of animal enterprises. Again, I would reserve judgment until reading the motion (and I will try to pull it off of PACER and post it), but I think that argument has enjoyed considerably less success in federal courts after a high point with RAV v. St. Paul. Moreover, with all respect, this is not the argument you made in your opening post.
2. The other argument made in the paragraph you cite is that “interfere” may be too vague, as well as overbroad. I suspect that a court will not find the statute fatally vague because the “interfere with” language is limited by the damaging and threatening language, which tracks very typical language in threat statutes. But again, I would not prejudge the motion before reading it.
It would be nice if one could rely on the media to report on legal matters accurately. Unfortunately, the media is consistently legally illiterate, particularly on controversial and constitutional issues. (The media’s reporting on Patriot Act issues, for example, is execrable.) But in this case the media doesn’t get the distinction between crimes and overt acts in support of a conspiracy. That lack of understanding is aggravated by a U.S. Attorney’s office that didn’t do a particularly good job of drafting the indictment or issuing a press release in a way that explained it.
But the bottom line is, yes, a criminal conspiracy can feature overt acts that are not illegal and are, in fact, protected conduct. I can look up a bank’s hours on the internet, travel to the bank, talk to a receptionist at the bank to get information about it, and call you to convey this information, and all of that is protected conduct. However, if you and have agreed to commit the federal crime of bank robbery, all of those acts can be treated as overt acts satisfying the overt act requirement of 18 USC section 371, the federal conspiracy statute. The overt act requirement is designed to protect people from being charged with conspiracy for mere theoretical discussions that have not moved beyond hypothetical planning to action. The problem is that the feds (I’m a former one, and now a defense attorney) like to list lots of overt acts in indictments, conveying to people who aren’t criminal lawyers the notion that these acts are being punished in and of themselves.
I’ll post the indictment and the motions (if they have been filed) in a post about this — this week, if I can find the time. Cheers.
Dr. Murphy:
In a recent post, you quoted the NLG for the proposition that the statute would criminalize civil disobedience, like blocking an entrance to a laboratory. I think that argument is exaggerated. Here’s why.
To violate the statute, blocking access to a laboratory in the course of civil disobedience would have to satisfy either (A) or (B) below:
I doubt you could show that blocking an entrance damaged real property; an interpretation of the statute that broad would create overbreadth and vagueness concerns. The NLG is probably referring to the “criminal tresspass” language in (B). But if they are doing so, they are ignoring the full language of (B). Only criminal trespass that constitutes a “true threat” of death or serious bodily injury — that is, that puts a person in reasonable fear of such harm — would qualify. Note that the statute does not (as it could) make it illegal to put someone in fear of any bodily injury. I find it hard to see how blocking an entrance could be spun to satisfy this true threat requirement.
Hi Popehat -
WRT to what AETA does and does not criminalize, here’s the ACLU’s 3/2/2006 letter to Congress regarding the resepective Senate and House versions of AETA. [To be fair, some changes were made after 3/2/2006, so it is certainly possible not all of the concerns in the letter carried through to the final version.]
[As in comment 78, I’m mindful you may not have the chance to reply before the 24 hour window closes at 6PM PDT. Hope putting up this series of replies doesn’t seem like “piling on” - that’s not my intent. On the contrary, your substantiative questions deserve the greatest attention possible. In this series of replies I’m hoping to share with you and our readers information which I hope can serve as the basis for future discussions.]
Hi Popehat,
Thanks so much for your ideas and the thoughtul exchange you have made possible. I agree that such exchanges are all too rare, and I’m grateful for the opportunity you’ve afforded us all for this one. I look forward to reading your post!
WRT to:
I’m not purporting to explain NLG’s reasoning, so I hope no one will blame them, CCR, or CLDC for the following – I’m the sole responsible (culpable?) party:
To the extent protests that involve infractions (sitting on sidewalks, blocking driveways) or even non-violent midemeanors (trespassing) can and do deprive targeted entities of “real property” when commercial outlets suffer loss of business due to blockades and the like, AETA certainly seems to criminalize civil disobedience.
The statute clearly extends not only to laboratories, but also to entities that sell animals for consumption. When activists “U-lock” their necks to the local Burger King’s doors (hypothetically, as part of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers’ national campaign to force BK to pay tomato pickers one penny more per pound), as long as the business’ doors are closed, the business is losing money. When my forest defender friends lock down the gates of lumber yards selling wood from ancient forests, they’re costing the lumber yard money. [Having stood by as medical support, I can attest the lumber yard staff are quite vocal about these economic losses! *g*]. When the lumber yards carry chicks, they are covered by AETA.
In both of the above scenaria, how would the direct cut-off of a retail outlet’s business resulting in demonstrable drop-off in daily receipts not be causing the loss of “real or personal property”?
Dr. Murphy:
Ack! The window is closing!
To answer your question in 83, I am highly skeptical that loss of business resulting from protest would be sufficient to satisfy the “intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property” prong. First, such an interpretation would be so broad and unexpected that it would open up the statute to vagueness challenges. Also, if memory serves, the Supreme Court rejected that very argument in finding that RICO could not be applied to sue abortion protesters. I will look it up.
Popehat, after all the opportunity I’ve had to observe how FDL’s legal conrtibutors and commenters outshine TradMed coverage, one would have thought I’d have learned to go direct to primary sources. Obviously, it appears I should have. Thank you (no snark intended) for educating me and for your discussion theis weekend.
I share your window stress! I appreciate your taking so much time, and I look forward to continuing to discuss this on Oxdown and FDL as posts arise.
Though I realize the use of RICO in the context you describe differs significantly from the use of RICO (or racketeering?) against forest defenders in Indiana, as near as I can tell this is the first use of RICO against US eco-activists who aren’t accused of property destruction.
Of course, until I see the indictments, I’ll reserve final judgement. But that’s no reflection on Will Potter’s good work – just recent learning *g*.
I don’t know if this is the first of conspiracy charges against activsts not accused of property destruction, but merely accused of practicing various forms of time-honored civil disobedience. Sure would like to know the answer to that.
http://www.greenisthenewred.co…..ists/1804/