Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
[edit] Reaction
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]
[edit] External links
- Text of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
- Earlier House version of the bill (H.R. 4239)
- ACLU Letter to Congress Opposing the AETA
- ACLU Letter to James Sensenbrenner Supporting an Amended AETA
- U.S. terror hunt targets animal activists (Toronto Star)
- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Action Alert Regarding the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
- American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Action Alert Regarding the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
- Equal Justice Alliance Why Oppose the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
