VeggieBoards banner
1 - 20 of 71 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Crossposted with permission from the FARM Campaign Updates email list:<br><br><br><br><span>Immediate Action Needed!<br><br>
New federal law may pass TOMORROW<br><br>
that labels peaceful activism as "terrorism!"<br><br>
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) is pending in Congress (HR 4239). Industry groups are pushing it through quickly and with little public scrutiny (fast-tracking it like the Patriot Act... first through the House of Reps, then through the Senate ) before the Fall recess.<br><br><br><br>
They plan to vote on this tomorrow, Friday, September 29 in the House.<br><br>
This is the most important call yet because it affects our ability to help ALL animals!<br><br><br><br>
We need to flood the lines with calls in opposition now!<br><br><br><br>
Contact your House Reps now at 202-224-3121 to urge them to oppose HR 4239.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Contact your Senators now at 202-224-3121 to urge them to oppose S 3880 (was S 1926).<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Contact co-sponsors Senators Inhof & Feinstein at 202-224-3121 to oppose S 3880.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Forward this message to friends, the ACLU & social advocacy groups.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Details & Talking Points:.<br><br><br><br>
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act drastically expands the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
AETA labels the tactics of Martin Luther King and Gandhi as terrorism. It spells out penalties for an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction of an animal enterprise or a business having a connection to, or relationship with, an animal enterprise, that may result in loss of profits but does not result in bodily injury. In other words any act that causes a loss of profits to animal-exploiting industries (like a reduction in meat consumption) can be treated as terrorism.<br><br>
AETA risks the prosecution of undercover investigators, whistle-blowers and other activists as terrorists. It defines economic damage as including the loss of profits. The extremely vague and broad sweeping language puts all animal advocates at risk. Causing the loss of profits is NOT terrorism. Its effective activism. And even activists that are not prosecuted under the law will be affected by the extreme rhetoric.<br><br>
AETA is unnecessary. There are already laws to protect industries against illegal actions, regardless of who commits the acts.<br><br>
All Americans should be concerned about this gross infringement on the first amendment. The term terrorism should not be used against peaceful social justice advocacy. Who will be next?<br><br><br><br><br><br>
************************************************** *********************<br><br><br><br>
For more in-depth information, visit <a href="http://www.GreenIsTheNewRed.com" target="_blank">http://www.GreenIsTheNewRed.com</a><br><br><br><br>
For more in-depth information, visit: <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-3880" target="_blank">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-3880</a><br><br><br><br>
To read HR 4239, see: <a href="http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4239:" target="_blank">http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4239:</a><br><br><br><br>
To read S. 3880, see: <a href="http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3880:" target="_blank">http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3880:</a></span>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
I just got this alert emailed to me tonight. Thank you so much for posting this for others! <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":up:">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
it passed the senate.....unanimously <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/sad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":("><br><br><br><br>
*please* contact your state reps.....if it passes the house & becomes law so much of what we do will become illegal. it doesn't just make extremist activities illegal, it makes *any* animal activism that can be shown to cause financial loss illegal. including peaceful protest. leafleting outside KFC? illegal. picketing a factory farm? illegal. educating people on the evils of pet stores? illegal. it's terrifying.<br><br><br><br>
please contact your state reps. find out who they are and how to contact them <a href="http://www.e-thepeople.org/letter/write" target="_blank">here</a>.<br><br><br><br>
and check out <a href="http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/" target="_blank">this blog</a> for more info:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,743 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>lady senora</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
it passed the senate.....unanimously <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/sad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":("><br><br><br><br>
*please* contact your state reps.....if it passes the house & becomes law so much of what we do will become illegal. it doesn't just make extremist activities illegal, it makes *any* animal activism that can be shown to cause financial loss illegal. including peaceful protest. leafleting outside KFC? illegal. picketing a factory farm? illegal. educating people on the evils of pet stores? illegal. it's terrifying.<br><br><br><br>
please contact your state reps. find out who they are and how to contact them <a href="http://www.e-thepeople.org/letter/write" target="_blank">here</a>.<br><br><br><br>
and check out <a href="http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/" target="_blank">this blog</a> for more info:</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
from the link above, the HSUS makes the point:<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">It is particularly disheartening to think Congress may rush forward with this ill-advised bill, yet not enact reasonable and long-overdue reform, such as the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act (H.R. 817/S. 382). Purportedly, the AETA sponsors want not only to penalize, but also to prevent, extremist conduct that endangers animal enterprises and the people associated with them. When Congress fails to act on modest animal welfare reforms like the animal fighting bill, it makes it more difficult for organizations like The HSUS to make the case to activists that meaningful change is possible working through the system and that they should pursue legal channels rather than taking matters into their own hands.</div>
</div>
<br>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,090 Posts
This is what happens when extremists think they can get away arson and threats of violence.... the laws get tougher for everyone and peaceful activism gets harder. Thanks a lot ALF supporters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,743 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>kpickell</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
This is what happens when extremists think they can get away arson and threats of violence.... the laws get tougher for everyone and peaceful activism gets harder. Thanks a lot ALF supporters.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
That's such a cop-out, kpickell. The government is going after activists, period, because they're having an effect, or threaten to have an effect, on the animal abuse industries. Leave it to you to blame activists or vegans or whoever is working to lessen the plight of animals - for the abuse they are trying to end. But this is your MO. You're the person who blames vegans for you deciding to start eating animal products again. Way to shift the blame. I don't see how this even concerns you since you're not an activist anyway and seem to find fault with just about everything they do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,743 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>kpickell</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
This is what happens when extremists think they can get away arson and threats of violence.... the laws get tougher for everyone and peaceful activism gets harder. Thanks a lot ALF supporters.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
This doesn't even make sense. It does nothing to strengthen the laws or penalties against the individuals you target - the law already covers them. This goes after other activists, like people who take undercover video, who the government and industry feel may be effective. People who "support" the ALF have nothing to do with it (but it's unfortunate that free speech is so threatening to you that simply voicing "support" of something controversial means you think the weight of the government should come down on those individuals as "terrorists").<br><br><br><br>
The government is going after AR activists, period, because they're having an effect, or threaten to have an effect, on the animal abuse industries. Leave it to you to blame activists or vegans or whoever is working to lessen the plight of animals - for the abuse they are trying to end. But this is your MO. You're the person who blames vegans for you deciding to start eating animal products again. I don't see how this even concerns you since you're not an activist and seem to find fault with just about everything they do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,090 Posts
You're in denial if you don't think this has anything to do with the ALF. They brought this on themselves. Level-headed ARAs have known and said all along that nothing good will come from threatening people and burning down buildings, we all knew the government would simply create tougher laws, and now they have... And the ALF is absolutely to blame.
 

·
Vegan Police Officer
Joined
·
5,211 Posts
The United States of America has been taken over by a military-industrial dictatorship since the coup d'état that put President George W. Bush into power.<br><br><br><br>
The delusion that writing to your senators or trying any democratic measures to change any legislation is precisely that: a delusion.<br><br><br><br>
My advice would be to get the hell out as soon as you can. Vote with your feet.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>lady senora</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
it passed the senate.....unanimously <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/sad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":("><br><br><br><br>
*please* contact your state reps.....if it passes the house & becomes law so much of what we do will become illegal. it doesn't just make extremist activities illegal, it makes *any* animal activism that can be shown to cause financial loss illegal. including peaceful protest. leafleting outside KFC? illegal. picketing a factory farm? illegal. educating people on the evils of pet stores? illegal. it's terrifying.<br><br><br></div>
</div>
<br><br><br><br><br>
I read the law, and no, it does not make currently legal protest activities illegal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,743 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>kpickell</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
You're in denial if you don't think this has anything to do with the ALF. They brought this on themselves. Level-headed ARAs have known and said all along that nothing good will come from threatening people and burning down buildings, we all knew the government would simply create tougher laws, and now they have... And the ALF is absolutely to blame.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I would just be repeating the above...the laws don't affect arsonists or anyone else you target. They're not bringing anything on themselves. The government and industry are going after other activists that they think might be effective.<br><br><br><br>
"Level-headed ARAs...we all" - uh, you are not an ARA.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
For those who are claiming "any" activism is now illegal due to the reference to "economic loss" in the bill, I suggest you actually read the whole thing.<br><br><br><br>
Key point: <i>Force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises</i><br><br><br><br>
Oh, look, legal disruptions are even given a specific exemption:<br><br><i>4) the term `economic disruption'--<br><br><br><br>
(A) means losses and increased costs that individually or collectively exceed $10,000, including losses and increased costs resulting from threats, acts or vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment or intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person's or entity's connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise; and<br><br><br><br>
(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;</i><br><br><br><br>
I am curious as to why people continually lie regarding such matters when the truth is rather apparent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,743 Posts
from HSUS:<br><br><br><br><b>The AETA threatens legitimate advocacy.</b> The legislation uses vague, overbroad terms such as interfering with which could be interpreted to include legitimate, peaceful conduct. For example, someone who uses the Internet to encourage people not to buy eggs from a company producing eggs with battery cages could be charged with terrorism for causing the company a loss of profits. Likewise, someone who seeks to interfere with the cruel treatment of puppies by filming the brutal conditions at a puppy mill, causing lost profits for the company when the film is publicized, could be charged with terrorism. The very risk of being charged as a terrorist will almost certainly have a chilling effect on legitimate activism.<br><br><br><br><b>The AETA is not clear.</b> The bill imposes penalties for economic damage, including loss of profits. It provides an exemption for lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise. But this exemption doesnt explicitly include activities such as whistleblowing and investigations that may well cause loss of profits. And whether an activists actions are subject to criminal penalties will depend on whether a public, governmental, or business audience reacts in a lawful way, something out of the activists control. Moreover, this exemption doesnt tie back to the offense, which uses different words than economic damage, so a court might disregard the exemption language altogether. (We had requested a clear exception in the offense section: Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to prohibit any damage or loss of property that results from boycotts, protests, demonstrations, investigations, whistleblowing, reporting of animal mistreatment, or from any lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise.)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Irizary</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
This doesn't even make sense. It does nothing to strengthen the laws or penalties against the individuals you target - the law already covers them. This goes after other activists, like people who take undercover video, who the government and industry feel may be effective. People who "support" the ALF have nothing to do with it (but it's unfortunate that free speech is so threatening to you that simply voicing "support" of something controversial means you think the weight of the government should come down on those individuals as "terrorists").<br></div>
</div>
<br><br><br><br><br>
Please cite the section of the bill that pertains to those taking videos. I suggest you look specifically at section d-4 to see where you are wrong.<br><br><br><br>
In addition, yes the law specifically goes after those who are already breaking the law. It makes the penalties more severe. I am not certain what you find so confusing about this.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Irizary</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
from HSUS:<br><br><br><br><b>The AETA threatens legitimate advocacy.</b> The legislation uses vague, overbroad terms such as interfering with which could be interpreted to include legitimate, peaceful conduct. For example, someone who uses the Internet to encourage people not to buy eggs from a company producing eggs with battery cages could be charged with terrorism for causing the company a loss of profits. Likewise, someone who seeks to interfere with the cruel treatment of puppies by filming the brutal conditions at a puppy mill, causing lost profits for the company when the film is publicized, could be charged with terrorism. The very risk of being charged as a terrorist will almost certainly have a chilling effect on legitimate activism.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
That is a bold faced lie. A law is taken in its entirety. The definitions provided of what constitutes breaking the law are all contingent upon:<br><br><b>"Sec. 43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises"</b><br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><br><br><br><br><br><b>The AETA is not clear.</b> The bill imposes penalties for economic damage, including loss of profits. It provides an exemption for lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise. But this exemption doesnt explicitly include activities such as whistleblowing and investigations that may well cause loss of profits. And whether an activists actions are subject to criminal penalties will depend on whether a public, governmental, or business audience reacts in a lawful way, something out of the activists control. Moreover, this exemption doesnt tie back to the offense, which uses different words than economic damage, so a court might disregard the exemption language altogether. (We had requested a clear exception in the offense section: Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to prohibit any damage or loss of property that results from boycotts, protests, demonstrations, investigations, whistleblowing, reporting of animal mistreatment, or from any lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise.)</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Again, the law is very clear. <b>Sec. 43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises</b>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,743 Posts
Yeah, the Humane Society with their numerous lawyers and legislative experience are a bunch of liars who don't understand the ramifications of the law as well as you do. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/sunny.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":sunny:">
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Irizary</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Yeah, the Humane Society with their numerous lawyers and legislative experience are a bunch of liars who don't understand the ramifications of the law as well as you do. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/sunny.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":sunny:"></div>
</div>
<br><br><br><br><br>
Very likely. Considering their agenda, I can't expect them to be unbiased. I mean, you could read the law and try to understand it yourself, but I guess that would be asking too much.<br><br><br><br>
It's rather simple.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
This is the section of the law that outlines what criminal activities are covered. (Again, note that it specifically refers to force, violence, and threats.)<br><br><br><br><b>Sec. 43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises</b><br><br><br><br>
(a) Offense- Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce<br><br><br><br>
(1) for the purpose of damaging or disrupting an animal enterprise; and<br><br><br><br>
(2) in connection with such purpose--<br><br><br><br>
(A) intentionally damages, disrupts, or causes the loss of any property (including animals or records) used by the animal enterprise, or any property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise;<br><br><br><br>
(B) intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or<br><br><br><br>
(C) conspires or attempts to do so;
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
Now let's look at subsection b, which covers the penalties.<br><br><br><br>
__________________________________________________ _______________<br><br>
(b) Penalties-<br><br><br><br>
(1) ECONOMIC DAMAGE- Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a) causes economic damage not exceeding $10,000 shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.<br><br><br><br>
(2) SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC DAMAGE OR ECONOMIC DISRUPTION- Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), causes economic damage or economic disruption exceeding $10,000 but not exceeding $100,000 shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.<br><br><br><br>
(3) MAJOR ECONOMIC DAMAGE OR ECONOMIC DISRUPTION- Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), causes economic damage or economic disruption exceeding $100,000 shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.<br><br><br><br>
(4) SIGNIFICANT BODILY INJURY OR THREATS- Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), causes significant bodily injury to another individual or intentionally instills in another the reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.<br><br><br><br>
(5) SERIOUS BODILY INJURY- Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), causes serious bodily injury to another individual shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.<br><br><br><br>
(6) DEATH- Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), causes the death of an individual shall be fined under this title and shall be imprisoned for life or for any term of years.<br><br><br><br>
(7) CONSPIRACY AND ATTEMPT- Any person who conspires or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the substantive offense.<br><br><br><br>
(c) Restitution- An order of restitution under section 3663 or 3663A of this title with respect to a violation of this section may also include restitution--<br><br><br><br>
(1) for the reasonable cost of repeating any experimentation that was interrupted or invalidated as a result of the offense;<br><br><br><br>
(2) the loss of food production or farm income reasonably attributable to the offense; and<br><br><br><br>
(3) for any other economic damage, including any losses or costs caused by economic disruption, resulting from the offense.<br><br><br><br>
__________________________________________________ __________<br><br><br><br>
Okay, now here we hit one of the areas the lying shills among the ARAs are whining about. (b)1-3 does outline penalties for those that cause various degrees of economic disruption, which is what the lying shills are leaning upon to claim boycotts and such would violate this law.<br><br><br><br>
On that, I have no choice but to declare "shenanigans." As can be seen in subsection a, which I cited in my previous post, the penalties in "b" only apply when force, violence, or threats have been involved. And no, boycotts and leafletting are not considered forceful activities under the law.<br><br><br><br>
Let's continue...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>kpickell</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
This is what happens when extremists think they can get away arson and threats of violence.... the laws get tougher for everyone and peaceful activism gets harder. Thanks a lot ALF supporters.</div>
</div>
<br>
Whether illegal activism motivates people to make these kind of laws or not depends on the political situation of the country. In societies that are not as deeply ****ed up as the US, something like this could never go through (hopefully at least).<br><br><br><br>
Also, have you ever considered that maybe the state will also make non-violent activism harder when it feels it threatens profits? Where I come from, the police can randomly pick people from demonstrations and put them in the cell (to again release them a while later because there's nothing to charge them with), and the secret police is photographing demonstrators, thus making some people have worse job opportunities because of the nature of their political views and the ways they express them.<br><br><br><br>
If you are truly opposing the way mainstream society runs things, you're going to get **** whether you act legally or non-violently or not.
 
1 - 20 of 71 Posts
Top