Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act -Animal Rights Activists Indicted Need Support URGENT - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 03-13-2005, 01:13 PM
Newbie
 
vegsoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 39
Read more and take action to help our fellow activists:



http://shac7.com/



The SHAC 7 represents a frightening new frontier in the war on speech. Indicted for protest activity against a criminally abusive animal-testing lab, their alleged modern forms of civil disobedience and traditional free expression are being heralded as terrorism by big business and their pocketed politicians.



The college graduates, law school student, EMT, and social justice volunteers draw a sharp contrast from the Osama bin Ladens of the world, but are being pursued no differently. Charged under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act they face millions in fines and up to twenty-three years in jail for protected political speech and an unabashed support of controversial forms activism.



Their indictment is constitutionally flawed and imperils not just those who speak out on behalf of animals, but anyone who has something controversial to say. The stand they now take is a stand for civil liberties of us all.





The SHAC 7 are animal rights activists indicted under the controversial Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The Act punishes anyone who "physically disrupts" an animal enterprise. The charges stem from these activists' alleged participation in an international campaign to close the notorious product testing lab http://www.insideHLS.com



Specifically, these activists are alleged to have operated a website that reported on and expressed ideological support for protest activity against Huntingdon and its business affiliates. For this they are charged with "terrorism" and face an aggregate of 23 years in Federal Prison.



The SHAC 7 case is the latest in an onslaught of attacks against domestic dissedents under the guise of fighting terrorism. Animal rights is a "fringe" issue and the government is banking on the broader social justice movement to turn a blind eye to those focusing on the less important issue of animals and expressing extremist views. But make no mistake - these activists are the canaries in the mine. This case is intended to pave the way for further silencing of activists involved in all issues. It is imperative that the broader social justice movement stand behind these activists in our communal defense of free speech, press, and association. Support the SHAC 7 and support your right to free expression!
vegsoul is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 03-13-2005, 07:14 PM
Veggie Regular
 
epski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,374
SHAC frightens me.
epski is offline  
#3 Old 03-16-2005, 07:36 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Balabean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by epski View Post

SHAC frightens me.

My sentiments exactly.
Balabean is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 03-17-2005, 10:45 AM
Newbie
 
Wysdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3
Vegsoul,



I don't know if you're talking about a certain 'cell' or division of SHAC? But overall, SHAC is bad news.



SHAC makes bombs. They blow things up. This endangers the lives of people, which are as important (not more, not less) than the lives of animals. This is not government propoganda: SHAC publically claimed responsibility for bombs planted in Chiro and Shaklee facilities.



Maybe whoever's in this "SHAC 7" outfit isn't that extreme, but they (either knowingly or in ignorance) affiliated themselves with eco-terrorists. I don't care if you're blowing **** up for Allah or for puppies: terrorism is not cool.



Anyone thinking of joining /any/ group of activists should do some /serious/ //research// into the background of said organization... you know, other than what your friends say and what the self-same organization's literature claims. This is critical for your safety: if you're part of a group like SHAC and you get caught, the fact that YOU PERSONALLY never planted a bomb or harmed anyone won't matter dick in a court of law.



'Kay? Stay in drugs. Drink your school. Don't do milk.



~W
Wysdom is offline  
#5 Old 03-17-2005, 12:26 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Uh, these people are being charged for operating a website. If you're willing to give up your free speech rights so easily because you're "scared" of who's speaking, I feel bad for America.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#6 Old 03-17-2005, 12:36 PM
Veggie Regular
 
bumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,422
I disagree with the above posters.

There have been maybe two instances of bomb making by people who may or may not be associated with SHAC.

The group has been using legal methods to bring down the labs of HLS and its suppliers.

If they can be silenced by the law. Then all groups speaking out about animal rights can be silenced. It is a dangerous and terrible precedent to set. There will always be a few violent offenders in any group, that does not mean we do not have the right to picket, letter write and phone people who are abusing and killing animals everyday.

The animal abusers are the REAL criminals.



Slowly but surely our right to demonstrate and our right to free-speech will be gone if we dont take the time to realize it.AR activists are slowly becoming viewed as terrorists,because all the Political powers that be, have a hand in the pocket of animal abuse somewhere ,somehow.Whether you agree with SHAC or not...you have to look at the underlying issue and what they are truely trying to surpress.



Thanks for the link.
bumble is offline  
#7 Old 03-17-2005, 12:38 PM
Veggie Regular
 
bumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,422
Irizary~we posted at the same time..oops.I agree 100% with you.
bumble is offline  
#8 Old 03-17-2005, 12:56 PM
Veggie Regular
 
xrodolfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumble View Post

If they can be silenced by the law. Then all groups speaking out about animal rights can be silenced. It is a dangerous and terrible precedent to set. There will always be a few violent offenders in any group, that does not mean we do not have the right to picket, letter write and phone people who are abusing and killing animals everyday.



Right on!



If these AR activists were being prosecuted for killing someone, I could understand the vitrol. However, they weren't. There may be tenuous connections to some random persons who made bombs, but they didn't.



You shouldn't convict someone for joining a group and then following the law. Sure, under this admin, convicting someone for terrorism requires only being on a group's email list. Those acts of state abuse of power should be critisized and fought against.



If there were to be any anger, it should be directed at the state and its pursuit of curtailing all of our liberties in order to secure more lucrative avenues for corporate criminals to perform animal experiments. The seven people doing legal protests, regardless of their political orientation or organizational status, are clearly the victims here.
xrodolfox is offline  
#9 Old 03-17-2005, 08:44 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Mycoolcats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 706
you dont think anyone has ever said they were part of peta and claimed responsibility for something illegal or a bomb? lol, Look at ELF or whatever, i mean they damage a lot of stuff, i dont agree with it, but if it helps some/any animals it stands for the same cause. Personally id like it if people and animals can be safe at the same time BUTTTT, im not fighting any animals to make sure people are safe, im always trying to get people to take care of their animals and not eat meat and not support cruelty etc like testing..... Im 98% on the animals side of things and 2% on the humans side. If a animal gets hit by a car, that sucks and ill feel bad, if a person got hit, they know not to be there and yeah ill be in shock that i saw it for a second but coudlnt care less 5 minutes later.... The animal getting hit, ill probably see images in my head for the next few days or so.
Mycoolcats is offline  
#10 Old 03-17-2005, 10:54 PM
Red
Veggie Regular
 
Red's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

Uh, these people are being charged for operating a website. If you're willing to give up your free speech rights so easily because you're "scared" of who's speaking, I feel bad for America.



Actually, you can read the full Federal Grand Jury indictment here (it's 27 pages):



http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/publica.../shac2.ind.pdf
Red is offline  
#11 Old 03-17-2005, 11:07 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Yes, I have read that before. And yes, they are being charged for a website. It's a First Amendment case.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#12 Old 03-17-2005, 11:27 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
And, in order to put some of the distortions of the government's case into perspective, here's another article (too lengthy to post all of it). In case you missed it, the government is working hand in hand with industries to shut down activists and dissent. Remember when Bush's Education Secretary called the National Education Association a "terrorist organization"? Gotta love the way the "t" word is thrown around.



See: http://www.pressaction.com/news/webl...tkahn08182004/

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#13 Old 03-18-2005, 03:44 AM
Veggie Regular
 
kpickell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,090
If it wasn't for SHAC laws like this wouldn't need to be inacted.
kpickell is offline  
#14 Old 03-18-2005, 08:02 AM
Newbie
 
Wysdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3
Look. There are /real/ threats to civil liberties and free speech out there. There are /real/ threats to activists engaging in legal protest and seeking to enact reform through education, boycotts, political lobby, et al.



This. Is. Not. One. Of. Them.



It's organizations like SHAC and the extremist (yes /terrorist/) actions they encourage that give all activists a bad name. Furthermore, they /endanger/ US by inflaming negative public opinion, prompting people to tweak and push through laws that DO limit civil liberty and free speech, and overall giving AR proponents a bad name. THESE people are why AR orgs all lumped together, in many people's minds, as a bunch of wackos. They damage our credibility and they set back, by miles, legitimate progress.



Let's deal with the facts, mm-kay?



Fact: SHAC publishes on their website the names, addresses, home telephone numbers, and other private information of persons they identify as 'targets' (ie persons who work for Huntingdon and who work for companies that have 'used' Huntingdon). The information posted about a target has been as detailed as to include names and physical descriptions of children, spouse/partner, pets; plates, make, & model of automobile(s)... and even the names, addresses, phone numbers and descriptions of an individual's extended family.



Let's forget about the extremely suggestive overtones of the word 'target'--especially when applied to a person. That by itself might just be a poor choice of words. Consider, however:



Fact: SHAC "espoused and encouraged others to engage in direct action, which as described by SHAC involved activities that operate outside the confines of the legal system. For instance, the SHAC Website posted what it termed the top 20 terror tactics, which described direct actions that could be taken against companies or individuals..."



Funny, isn't it, how people are so upset with SHAC getting slapped with the 'T word' when SHAC uses that very word/terminology themselves?



Fact: Some of the 'terror tactics'/'direct actions' that are suggested by SHAC are: physical assault including spraying cleaning fluid into ones eyes; smashing the windows of ones house while the individuals family was at home; firebombing ones car; threatening telephone calls and letters including

threats to kill or injure ones partner or children.



Let me ask this: any pro-choicers in the house? If you are, how do you feel about the Nuremberg Files? The people who run THAT website publish the personal info of doctors who perform abortions and other employees that staff family planning clinics. This information HAS BEEN USED by extremists to stalk, harass, and murder doctors who perform abortions. Is publishing this info and encouraging people to kill doctors protected under free speech? If not, how is it different than what SHAC is doing?



Do you think it's free speech to walk into a crowded theater and yell "FIRE!"?



Hate speech is not protected by the first ammendment. Hate speech is defined as "speech intended to hurt, intimidate, or to incite violence or prejudicial action against someone". There could be no better definition for the content for which SHAC is being prosecuted.



Seriously, people. I'd love to hear some legit arguements supporting how this bollocks is a 'free speech' issue. I'd love to hear someone step up and say they support the Nuremberg Files or explain their hypocrisy if they don't.



If the /organization/ itself (SHAC) publically supports and encourages violence and terror against individuals (which they unquestionably do), members of said organization are aiding and abetting these acts. Just because someone loves puppies doesn't make them the good guys. Hitler loved puppies, okay?



Throw your weight behind a legit org.



~W
Wysdom is offline  
#15 Old 03-18-2005, 08:28 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Frost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,082
Fact: You have no references.



This means until you do, nothing you say is actually: FACT.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Wysdom View Post

Look. There are /real/ threats to civil liberties and free speech out there. There are /real/ threats to activists engaging in legal protest and seeking to enact reform through education, boycotts, political lobby, et al.



This. Is. Not. One. Of. Them.



It's organizations like SHAC and the extremist (yes /terrorist/) actions they encourage that give all activists a bad name. Furthermore, they /endanger/ US by inflaming negative public opinion, prompting people to tweak and push through laws that DO limit civil liberty and free speech, and overall giving AR proponents a bad name. THESE people are why AR orgs all lumped together, in many people's minds, as a bunch of wackos. They damage our credibility and they set back, by miles, legitimate progress.



Let's deal with the facts, mm-kay?



Fact: SHAC publishes on their website the names, addresses, home telephone numbers, and other private information of persons they identify as 'targets' (ie persons who work for Huntingdon and who work for companies that have 'used' Huntingdon). The information posted about a target has been as detailed as to include names and physical descriptions of children, spouse/partner, pets; plates, make, & model of automobile(s)... and even the names, addresses, phone numbers and descriptions of an individual's extended family.



Let's forget about the extremely suggestive overtones of the word 'target'--especially when applied to a person. That by itself might just be a poor choice of words. Consider, however:



Fact: SHAC "espoused and encouraged others to engage in direct action, which as described by SHAC involved activities that operate outside the confines of the legal system. For instance, the SHAC Website posted what it termed the top 20 terror tactics, which described direct actions that could be taken against companies or individuals..."



Funny, isn't it, how people are so upset with SHAC getting slapped with the 'T word' when SHAC uses that very word/terminology themselves?



Fact: Some of the 'terror tactics'/'direct actions' that are suggested by SHAC are: physical assault including spraying cleaning fluid into ones eyes; smashing the windows of ones house while the individuals family was at home; firebombing ones car; threatening telephone calls and letters including

threats to kill or injure ones partner or children.



Let me ask this: any pro-choicers in the house? If you are, how do you feel about the Nuremberg Files? The people who run THAT website publish the personal info of doctors who perform abortions and other employees that staff family planning clinics. This information HAS BEEN USED by extremists to stalk, harass, and murder doctors who perform abortions. Is publishing this info and encouraging people to kill doctors protected under free speech? If not, how is it different than what SHAC is doing?



Do you think it's free speech to walk into a crowded theater and yell "FIRE!"?



Hate speech is not protected by the first ammendment. Hate speech is defined as "speech intended to hurt, intimidate, or to incite violence or prejudicial action against someone". There could be no better definition for the content for which SHAC is being prosecuted.



Seriously, people. I'd love to hear some legit arguements supporting how this bollocks is a 'free speech' issue. I'd love to hear someone step up and say they support the Nuremberg Files or explain their hypocrisy if they don't.



If the /organization/ itself (SHAC) publically supports and encourages violence and terror against individuals (which they unquestionably do), members of said organization are aiding and abetting these acts. Just because someone loves puppies doesn't make them the good guys. Hitler loved puppies, okay?



Throw your weight behind a legit org.



~W

Frost is offline  
#16 Old 03-18-2005, 08:30 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Frost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,082
There are already laws in place for criminal activity. Why does this warrant any "special" attention?



Hint: $$$$$



Quote:
Originally Posted by kpickell View Post

If it wasn't for SHAC laws like this wouldn't need to be inacted.

Frost is offline  
#17 Old 03-18-2005, 08:51 AM
Newbie
 
Wysdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3
Source: The Grand Jury indictment



Please see the link in Red's post, above.



The cited pages on SHAC's website have been taken down



I'm currently having trouble getting the board to post anything I submit with a URL in (errror: Could not find phrase 'x_contains_urls') or I would have included source info in the last post.



Legal details and definitions regarding hate speech can be found in numerous online legal libraries.



Replies welcome.



~W
Wysdom is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off