Congress bolsters anti-activist law

According to Will Potter at Green Is The New Red, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act has passed the House. The bill expands and increases the penalties for "animal enterprise terrorism," a federal offense created to protect institutional animal users. It passed the Senate at the end of September, and since then most major animal advocacy groups (including the ASPCA!) have been lobbying against its passage by the House.

Potter runs through the short debate that occurred in the House, including dissenting words by Rep. Dennis Kucinich and the shocking statement by one representative that the ACLU has approved the bill. This letter from the legislative office of the ACLU confirms that it has backed away from its earlier, sound criticism of the bill. The ACLU's proposed "minor changes," which waltz around the viewpoint discrimination implicit in the bill, do not befit the organization's hard-core free speech principles. We are mortified.

We've noted before on this site the changes in the new law, e.g., useless First Amendment disclaimers, an expanded list of protected institutional "victims," but Potter says it much better than we could, and also notes some other problems at his analysis of the original bill and as it passed the Senate. For instance, the legislation now criminalizes actions which "instill in another the reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death." It used to be that you needed to cause economic damage or hurt a person.

One odd thing that we hadn't noticed was a clerical amendment which, to some extent undercuts the hysteria (unreasonable fear?) used to pass this bill. As noted above, the section heading for the offense used to be called "Animal enterprise terroism" but is now  "Force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises." We'd like to read this is as a tacit acknowledgment that (with very, very few exceptions) even the most radical AR activists in this country cannot credibly be called terrorists.

Update: The bill was passed by voice vote. The brief debate, as recorded in the Congressional Record starts at H8590.

Comments

[Cate Veith]

Statement of Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act:

I stand with every Member of the House in defense of the rights of individuals to be free of bodily harm or injury under all and any circumstances. But, the fact of the matter is, existing Federal law already includes any place which does Federal research.

So the question is, why create a new and specific classification here?
We, of course, need to protect peoples' right to conduct their work without fear of assault. But, a larger question remains yet unanswered by this Congress: How should animals be treated humanely?

There are some specific principles with respect to humane treatment of animals but, these do not go far enough. My concern about this bill is that it does nothing to address the real issue of animal protection but, instead targets those advocating animal rights. This legislation will have a real and chilling effect on people’s Constitutionally protected First Amendment rights.

I am not talking about people who would threaten anyone with death because they don't agree with them, but there are individuals who love animals, who don't want to see animals hurt, who have a point and a right to speak out. I think for that reason, this bill has not yet reached its maturity.

I understand what the sponsors of this bill are trying to do, but I don't think that they will reach the end they are hoping to achieve unless this Congress makes a clear statement about ethical principles with respect to animals and how we treat animals in research and other enterprise.

These are very serious questions that millions of Americans care about. I understand the intent here, but I think that you must be very careful about painting everyone with the broad brush of terrorism who might have a legitimate objection to research with or treatment of animals that is inhumane.

Bringing up a bill like this under procedures that only allow limited debate, and no amendments, no matter how well intentioned, is problematic.

I am not and never have been in favor of anyone using a cloak of free speech to commit violence. The Supreme Court Justice said, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. No one has the right to yell ``fire'' in a crowded theater. We have heard those kinds of admonitions.

I am not for anyone abusing their rights by damaging another person's property or person, but I am for protecting the First Amendment and not creating a special class of violations for a specific type of protest.

Balancing Constitutional concerns against the protection of people and property is never easy. Unfortunately, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act goes too far in the wrong direction.