Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Animal rights

Activists
Greg Avery · David Barbarash
Rod Coronado · Barry Horne
Ronnie Lee · Keith Mann
Ingrid Newkirk · Andrew Tyler
Jerry Vlasak · Robin Webb

Groups/campaigns
Animal Aid
Animal Liberation Front
Animal liberation movement
Animal Rights Militia
BUAV · Great Ape Project
Justice Department
PETA
PCRM · SPEAK
Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty
Viva!

Issues
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
Animal rights
Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
Animal testing · Bile bear
Factory farming
International trade in primates
Nafovanny
Non-human primate experiments
Operation Backfire
Speciesism

Cases
Britches
Cambridge University primates
Covance · Huntingdon Life Sciences
Pit of despair · Silver Spring monkeys
Unnecessary Fuss

Writers/advocates
Steven Best · Stephen R.L. Clark
Gary Francione · Gill Langley
Tom Regan · Richard D. Ryder
Peter Singer · Steven M. Wise

Categories
Animal experimentation
Animal Liberation Front
Animal rights movement

Animal rights
This box: view  talk  edit

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) is a United States federal law introduced by Republican Thomas Petri of Wisconsin. The final version of the bill, recently passed by both the Senate and House, was known as S. 3880. Earlier versions of the bill were known as S. 1926 and H.R. 4239. [1] The bill is described by the author as being intended to "provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror." [2]

The intended targets are animal rights activists and environmental activists, sometimes called eco-terrorists, who engage in acts of "force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises" [3] by penalizing damage or interference to animal enterprises or conspiring or attempting to damage or interfere with an animal enterprise [4]. The law does not "prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution," [5]

The House passed the bill under a suspension of the rules, which meant that only six Representatives were present to vote on it. Among the six, the only opposition was from Representative Dennis Kucinich, who claimed that the bill was "written in such a way as to have a chilling effect on the exercise of peoples' first amendment rights." [6]

The bill was passed by the Senate in September 2006 and was approved by the House of Representatives in November 2006. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 27, 2006.

The Equal Justice Alliance, an organization with the sole purpose is to defeat the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, is composed of 200 organizations all of which oppose the Act. Speaking for its members, the Equal Justice Alliance states the law is "excessively broad and vague," "imposes disproportionate punishment," "brands as ‘terrorists’ and denies equal protection under the law to animal advocates," "brands as ‘terrorism’ and imposes severe penalties on civil disobedience," "has a chilling effect on all forms of protest by endangering free speech and assembly," "sets back investigation of federal law violations by animal enterprises," and "detracts from prosecution of real terrorism against the American people," [7].

The ACLU, though not opposing the bill, sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, requesting "minor changes" to the bill to address concerns that "legitimate expressive activity" which economically damages or inhibits the business of an animal enterprise, could be classified as terrorist activity. The ACLU also expressed concern that the bill could be used against those interrupting illegal animal enterprises, such as animal fighting. [8]

The bill was supported by the Animal Enterprise Protection Coalition, an industry group including GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche and Wyeth among its members, leading the the activist group Win Animal Rights to suggest it was "bought and paid for, by the pharmaceutical industry" [9]

Animal rights activists have criticized the bill on the grounds that it does not provide explicit protection for whistleblowing and undercover investigations, [10] and complained they have been unfairly singled out. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals argues that "no other industrial sector in U.S. history has ever been given such legal protections against people's exercising of their First Amendment free-speech rights. This bill is an attempt by corporations to manipulate people's fear of terrorism in an effort to stop the peaceful animal protection movement" [11].

Alliance for Animals director Lori Nitzel suggested "it heavily criminalizes civil disobedience, and just for animal rights activists." [12] However, Jerry Vlasak, spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, suggested the bill would have little impact on the movement because underground activists "don't really care about those laws" and law enforcement agencies had already "gone after" effective above-ground activists. [13]

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals opposed the bill and "is sorry" it passed into law [14]. Likewise, the Humane Society of the United States believes the law's language is overly broad and vague, the current law is satisfactory, and that the AETA could be interpreted to protect unlawful animal enterprises [15].

The American Kennel Club endorsed the bill, because it contains "explicit language" which protects the right of protesters to engage in "peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration." [16] Frankie Trull, president of the National Association for Biomedical Research described as "just silly" fears that peaceful protest would be criminalized by the bill, believing it would only apply when protesters "harass someone to the extent that they fear for their safety." [17]

Advanced Search
Included Web Search Engines


Safe Search

close

Top Matching Results

Occasionally Search.com will highlight specialized results that are based on the context of your query. Examples of specialized results include specific links to news, images, or video.

Top Matching Results may highlight information from other Search.com pages, content from the CNET Network of sites, or third party content. The listings are based purely on relevance. Search.com does not receive payment for listings in this section but our partners that provide this data may get paid for listing these products.

Sponsored Links

This section contains paid listings which have been purchased by companies that want to have their sites appear for specific search terms and related content. These listings are administered, sorted and maintained by a third party and are not endorsed by Search.com.

Search Results

Search.com sends your search query to several search engines at one time and integrates the results into one list which has been sorted by relevance using Search.com's proprietary algorithm. You can customize the list of search engines included in your metasearch from the preferences.

The search engines that are used in your metasearch may allow companies to pay to have their Web sites included within the results. To view the Paid Inclusion policy for a specific search engine, please visit their Web site. Search.com does not accept payment or share revenue with any search engine partner for listings in this section.