Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act ( AETA , formerly Animal Enterprise Protection Act ( AEPA )) is a US federal law that certain actions "with the intention of the activities of animal-use business [" Animal Enterprises "damaging or affecting]" as "terrorism" criminalizes. The law covers all acts that threaten either “damage to or loss of property or movable property” or individuals. It was written with the intention of

"To provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror."

"To give the Department of Justice the necessary authority to arrest, prosecute and convict individuals who practice terrorism against animal-using companies"

- One Hundred Ninth Congress of the United States of America

The text of the law contains a clause that AETA should not be used to prevent "any expressive actions, such as the peaceful cordoning off [of premises] or other peaceful demonstrations that are permitted by the first amendment to the constitution ".

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is the extended version of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act the 1992, allowing US Justice Department broader possibilities for action in pursuit of activists of the environmental and animal rights movement by the case of " scientific and use commercial companies that animals or animal products or sell ”into the definition of“ Animal Enterprises ”and the extension of the possible sentence .

Conclusion of the law

Originally from Tom Petri , Dianne Feinstein and Jim Inhofe in the 109th United States Congress , the final version was introduced the bill on 29 September 2006 by the United States Senate by " Unanimous consent " ( unanimous decision adopted) and the House of Representatives under " suspension of the rules "( repeal of the rules )

The only counter-speaker was Dennis Kucinich , who criticized the bill that it would have a chilling effect on the exercise of the constitutional right to protest. Despite his speech, Kucinich waived a formal objection, which would have overruled the suspension of the rights proceedings . George W. Bush put the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act into effect on November 27, 2006 with his signature.

Reactions

Representatives of the animal rights movements, environmental movements and organizations for free speech and civil rights criticized it as unconstitutional restriction of freedom of expression and part of the green scare .

Representatives of the pharmaceutical industry , in addition to the American Kennel Club , for example, expressed themselves benevolently:

"Today, the AETA provides greater protection for the biomedical research community and their families against intimidation and harassment, and addresses for the first time in federal law, campaigns of secondary and tertiary targeting that cause economic damage to research enterprises."

"Today, AETA offers better protection for the biomedical research community and their families against intimidation and threats and, for the first time, also addresses campaigns in a federal law that cause economic damage to research-based companies as a second or third purpose."

- National Association for Biomedical Research

The American Civil Liberties Union only expressed concerns that AETA would restrict freedom of expression and expression and proposed changes in detail:

  • A clear definition of what movable and immovable property was
  • the greater limitation of animal enterprise
  • substantial reductions in the penalties for conspiracy convictions ( sanctions based on "conspiracy to commit a crime" )

None of the proposals were incorporated into the final legislative text.

Constitutional lawsuit against AETA

Symbolic picture: Protest against fur by a PETA activist.

2011, five years after entry into force, complained five activists with counsel for the Center for Constitutional Rights before the federal courts of the United States , when they saw an unconstitutional restriction of the right to demonstrations:

"There are many terms in the law that are not defined, and because of that protesters don't have notice that certain conduct is going to violate the statute and what conduct is protected by the First Amendment. Some of my clients want to engage in simple public protests - perhaps in front of a fur store - to change public opinion about fur, but they feel restricted from engaging in that clearly lawful activity because under the plain language of the law, if that protest is successful in convincing consumers not to shop at that fur store, they could be charged as terrorists. "

“There are many terms in the law that are not defined. As a result, many protesters do not know that certain conduct is against this law and which conduct is protected by the First Amendment . Some of my clients simply want to take part in public demonstrations - perhaps in front of a fur trade - to change public opinion about fur, but they feel inhibited from participating in this clearly constitutional act because the law simply says: If this protest is successful for consumers Buy in this fur trade, then they could be charged as terrorists. "

- Rachel Meeropol

On March 18, 2013, the constitutional suit was dismissed without the judge referring to the question about restricted freedom of expression.

Legal proceedings

The law was passed while the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty campaigns were active and in the media . In addition to other uses of AETA in indictments, the resulting proceedings in particular reached the broader public:

Six activists of the movement were charged with the help of the conspiracy aspects of AETA, as no conclusive evidence or evidence of their knowledge of the other, presumably illegal, activities of the protests could be proven. Appeal proceedings were dismissed because the activists had taken part in other political protests and made speeches there and thus circumstantial evidence was available. One suspect was convicted of technical support, he helped run the website , which third parties used to collude with illegal actions.

See also

literature

  • Jason Del Gandio & Anthony J. Nocella II (Eds.) (2014): The Terrorization of Dissent: Corporate Repression, Legal Corruption, and the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Lantern Books (US)

Web links

In English :

Remarks

  1. ↑ a b Without a vote, to speed up parliamentary procedures, customary for non-controversial draft laws

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Public Law 109-374
  2. ^ Text of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act , govtrack.us. Retrieved July 16, 2014.
  3. ^ Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. nabr.org - official website of the National Association for Biomedival Research , archived from the original on November 10, 2010 ; Retrieved July 16, 2014 .
  4. ↑ Denise Lavoie, Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Fought By Activists , The Huffington Post website, December 15, 2011. Retrieved July 15, 2014.
  5. ↑ Rights Group condemns Dismissal of Animal Rights "Terrorism" Case , Center for Constitutional Rights - site. Retrieved July 15, 2014.