Four People Face Federal Prison for Passing Out Leaflets and Chalking Slogans

change you can believe in


By: Kirk James Murphy, M.D. Saturday May 23, 2009 6:01 pm

Today four Northern California animal rights activists await Federal criminal trial for ghastly crimes including leaving a stack of leaflets in a cafe, chalking slogans on pavement, and chanting. Oh, and using the internet to locate the individuals they were protesting. Yes, the world's only superpower can't be bothered to defend us against banksters' usury or death from want of health care, but when it comes to leaflets in cafes, chalked slogans, and Google searches, they're here for us. To shut us up.

Each proscribed and terrifying act of handing out leaflets, chanting, chalking, or — gasp — Googling is now a Federal crime, punishable by up to five years in Federal prison. How did the Homeland's security police make speech a crime? They used AETA, the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act: the law that makes America's civil rights movement a Federal crime.

Who wrote AETA and bribed pushed it through Congress? ALEC, the American Legislative Enterprise Council: the megacorps' mega-lobby group that includes Pharma and the drive-through diabetes junk food industry. Why do Homeland Security and ALEC want to defy our Constitution and destroy our civil rights?

Oh, the usual reason: freedom's bad for capital. Our civil rights and our Constitution might somehow someday mean some bankster or CEO may get a smaller bonus. Now that's worth destroying a democracy for, right?

Yesterday the Civil Liberties Defense Center and the Center For Constitutional Rights joined defense counsel for the four arrestees (the AETA 4) in petitioning the US District Court for Northern California to strike down the Animal Enterprise Act as unconstitutional.

Damn good thing, too. The San Jose Mercury News reports the AETA 4's alleged crimes include:

Oct. 21, 2007: A group of 20 protesters demonstrated outside of a UC Berkeley professor's home in El Cerrito. Some wore bandanas to hide their faces. They trespassed on his front yard, chanted slogans and accused him of being a murderer because of his use of animals in research.

Jan. 27, 2008: Demonstrations, including chalking, in front of the homes of several UC researchers

July 29, 2008: Fliers left at Caffe Pergolesi in Santa Cruz that contained the names, addresses and telephone numbers of several UCSC scientists. The fliers said the researchers were "murders and torturers alive and well in Santa Cruz" and stated "We know where you live. We know where you work. We will never back down until you end your abuse."

Though taking protests to people's homes is a tactic many folks find unacceptable, many other Americans choose to exercise their right to peaceably assemble and protest in residential neighborhoods, as well as outside of offices and factories. This form of public speech is as old as the Republic, and as recent as public protests outside of banksters' estates.

Is trespass a crime? Yep, and under California law, it can be prosecuted. Are assault and battery and attempted forcible entry crimes under California law? Yep, and those too may be prosecuted. California's been prosecuting people for violence before Carter marketed little pills. Nothing in AETA is required to prosecute the following alleged crime:

Feb. 20, 2008: A group of five protesters tried to forcibly enter the Westside home of a UC Santa Cruz researcher during a child's birthday party. The researcher's husband was hit during the demonstration.

I'll never support violence or home invasions, but AETA isn't about prohibiting those acts. AETA's about prohibiting speech and public advocacy: that's why protest and chalking and chanting and fliers are specific acts of allegedly criminal content. Because AETA sez so. And our trusty Federal minders have decided they want to enforce the corporatist law that makes speech a crime.

They have plenty of company in their corporate servitude. When ALEC wanted to make effective civil disobedience against megacorps a crime, their carefully bribed servants hired hands in Congress gave them exactly what they wanted:

Virginia Representative Bobby Scott-often called the "go-to-guy" in the House on civil liberties and civil rights issues-came out swinging in support of the "ecoterrorism" bill. Scott, a Democrat, said that existing laws have been "reasonably effective," but "gaps and loopholes" prevent law enforcement from going after animal rights "extremists."



Disturbingly, Scott said in passing that civil disobedience could be covered in the bill-which some other supporters of the bill have denied-but he tried to ease public fears by saying that the civil disobedience would have to cause disruption and loss of profits to qualify, and that "it must be proven that such losses were specifically intended." The same congressman who frequently praises the achievements of the civil rights movement is suddenly standing on the House floor and advocating the inclusion of that movement's tactics in a "terrorism" bill.

Gee, so Representative Scott now only wants America to allow protests whose organizers don't expect to disrupt business profits...say, by sitting for hours at a lunch counter without being served. Thanks for pulling up the ladder behind you, Congressman Scott.

As they showed back when they rubber-stamped the Patriot Act and confirmed last week when they pretended the MP's at Leavenworth couldn't handle Gitmo detainees, the vast majority of what pass for our Congresscritters are rank cowards who piss themselves whenever opponents brand them "soft on terror". Same thing the vast majority of their predecessors did when the corporatists' Mighty Wurlitzer screamed "soft on commies", and later "soft on crime".

The only thing that can make them betray their oath to protect and uphold the Constitution faster are the bribes campaign contributions the American Legislative Exchange Council's megacorp owners eagerly provide. Hey - thanks to their prior "donations", it's all tax-deductible. Shredding our Constitution for the corporatists - such a deal.

Don't you just love those patriots at ALEC - and the one-third of ALEC's legislative members who are Democrats? People For The American Way have more on ALEC's mission:

ALEC's agenda includes rolling back civil rights, challenging government restrictions on corporate pollution, limiting government regulations of commerce, privatizing public services, and representing the interests of the corporations that make up its supporters.

Who could have anticipated? Well, anyone who watched what happened after ALEC's sponsors wrote AETA's parent, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. The Center For Constitutional Rights watched what happened with AEPA:

The AEPA was put on the books in 1992 by well-funded industries that exploit animals. Proponents of the AEPA argued that the number of violent attacks committed by so-called animal rights extremists on farming and research facilities was escalating, and that the AEPA was necessary to protect these facilities. They claimed that (1) existing state & federal laws had failed to curtail such acts, and (2) these attacks disrupted vital services relied on by millions of Americans. Despite these assertions, the language of the AEPA swept up constitutionally-protected free speech activities, even though legislators believed they had struck a balance between the right to protest and the need to provide additional criminal penalties for violent acts. Despite the claims of the corporate interests that this law was vital, the law has only been used twice during the last 16 years.

In one of those two uses, our brave servants in Federal law enforcement prosecuted the "SHAC 7" — six activists and a non-profit (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA Inc.) — for the crime of posting information about animal rights protests on the internet. The activists covered a global campaign against a private firm, Huntington Life Sciences, that contracts to perform hideous painful animal testing for cosmetics manufacturers, but were not direct participants in other folks' illegal actions against HLS.

In January DOJ attorneys sword to uphold the Constitution told the Third Circuit Court of Appeals the SHAC activists convictions must be upheld. Why?

Will Potter of Green Is The New Red reported on the hearing.

Perhaps the most disturbing element of the appeal was hearing the government speak so candidly and succinctly about what kind of conduct should be prosecuted.

For instance, Darius Fullmer was a leader of the Animal Defense League in New Jersey. He sent emails to the defendants saying that, although his group is focused on anti-fur campaigning, he will try to get people to start showing up at protests. He also forwarded a SHAC email to his members which describe "Black Fax Mondays" (electronic civil disobedience where activists fax black pieces of paper to the targeted company, in hopes of draining their toner cartridges and tying up their fax machine lines.)

"That's his embrace," Moramarco said. "That one document is sufficient evidence."

Similarly, Josh Harper made two speeches in which he supported the "black fax" tactic. One was to a local group in Seattle, the other was to activists in Little Rock. Those speeches, the government said, are enough for a conviction. Two speeches. Three years in prison.

Moramarco stretched even further in the case of Lauren Gazzola. He pointed to a radio interview in which Gazzola says, "We support property destruction, we support illegal action, we support home demonstrations and economic sabotage."

In what might have been the boldest, most chilling argument made by the government in this case, Moramarco said that such a statement of her political beliefs and her personal views, such a statement about which tactics she believes are effective, was "tantamount to a confession."

Wonder if US Asst. Attorney Glenn J. Moramarco went to law school wanting to prosecute thought crimes, or if that's something he only picked up in the Bushie DOJ?

We're lucky that Lauren Regan and the CLDC together with the good folks at CCR stepped forward yesterday. Let's hope they can persuade Federal Courts to uphold the same Constitution that most of the Congress would so eagerly destroy.

"A Republic, if you can keep it."

Good luck.


http://firedoglake.com/2009/05/23/four-people-face-federal-prison-for-passing-out-leaflets-and-chalking-slogans-change-we-can-believe-in/

"We know where you live. We know where you work. We will never back down until you end your abuse."

How is this different from anti-abortion whackos?

...when the left does it.

When this group has used a demonstration to unlawfully burst into people's homes during a birthday party, or their protests - for some reason - ALWAYS take a violent turn, it's understandable someone would want to do something about it. Whether what they've done is right or not is another question, but they're going to get a sympathetic ear from just about anyone who hears the details.

the rule is to demonstrate so far away from a clinic..and there is NO law I am aware of that fobids abortion whackos from demonstrating outside of a doctors home?

"Is trespass a crime? Yep, and under California law, it can be prosecuted. Are assault and battery and attempted forcible entry crimes under California law? Yep, and those too may be prosecuted. ... I'll never support violence or home invasions, but AETA isn't about prohibiting those acts. AETA's about prohibiting speech and public advocacy: that's why protest and chalking and chanting and fliers are specific acts of allegedly criminal content. Because AETA sez so. And our trusty Federal minders have decided they want to enforce the corporatist law that makes speech a crime."

It's the linkages that are disturbing here. Because some of these protesters' actions were criminal, everything they did or said can be treated as terroristic threats, with sentences to match. Once the sending of black faxes to corporations has been criminalized, delivering two speeches that support the tactic is considered worthy of a three-year prison sentence.

This is one of those "first they came for the Jews" situations. If they can redefine ordinary crimes like trespassing as terrorism and raise the sentences to draconian levels -- and then convict anybody who even expresses approval of direct action on conspiracy charges -- then civil disobedience as we have known it becomes impossible.

Then add in that they're trying to criminalize anything which costs corporations their profits -- including not only illegal but non-violent forms of monkey-wrenching but also such time-honored legal tactics as strikes and boycotts -- and we could really be up shit's creek. Do you really want to do hard time for suggesting at DU that members should boycott Rush Limbaugh's advertisers?

police say? gee we can't do a thing unless they actually break the law...there are now stalking laws, but unless you can prove he actually stalked you and not just made a threat...well, sugar, we can do nothing...AND THEY ARE REAL THREATS TO REAL LIVING HUMAN BEINGS...NOT THREATS TO CORPORATE PROFITS!! :grr:..did I say :grr:

But the point really to be made is that if stalkers did the things that these people did, they would be arrested and would be charged.

Most stalkers always manage to stay within the law. Just barely. But within the law. Few can understand the impact of being told that someone harassing you to death or threatening you cannot be prosecuted. Becuase they haven't crossed the line. These people crossed the line.

For those who defend them, may someone do it to you. You will no longer defend them.

the police cannot do anything about the threats! How does that help your argument? I mean, it's a shame the corporations actually got something done about stalking first, but . . .

is NO protection at all!!!

The stalking laws depend on "perceived threat" and the likelihood of violence based solely on that "perceived threat." It is usually perceived as a reaction rather than a threat of action on the part of the stalker by law enforcement. Particularly when there is any "personal relationship" involved. A sad reality of the law that unfortunately, as you point out, results in quite a few stalking victims lying dead on sidewalks in this country every year. Often with the stalker standing over them with a gun in one hand and a restraining order in the other.

Cause stalking, which this involves, is treated a little differently because there is no "personal relationship" involved. Only a cause and so if actions or reactions indicate the likelihood of violence, law enforcement takes the matter more seriously.

Cause stalking usually does result in violent acts. Trespass usually involves vandalism. The cases are easier to prove and easier to prosecute. At some point perhaps law enforcement will apply the same standards of "perceived threat" to all stalking. At the present time, sadly, they do not. I've been stalked by someone I don't even know. I wish he would trespass or send a threat. He's an attorney. A prominent one. He knows better. He knows the law. He knows which lines he can and cannot cross. But then most stalkers do. Most predators know the law of the jungle. Most prey does not. Which is how we become prey.

My point simply is at least in this case someone who has terrorized another human being is being held accountable. And the law by the way is being applied to the protestors at abortion clinics. The media for some reason prefers to give the impression that it is not.

And it's hard to garner sympathy for someone advocating property violence.

I realize you're wanting everyone to understand the unfairness of it all, but there is only so much time to support so many causes, and the people involved in yours suck.

And I have news for you- I would much rather be a circus elephant than be chased around Africa by some guy with an elephant gun and a chainsaw.

being 'chased by elephant guns'..you want to be protected even if it means giving up your freedom and family..gee I never knew!

golly, gee, thanks for the sentiment! I'm now behind you 110%! Kisses!

You're trying to convince people of the rightness of your cause, so that people will join you, making the cause bigger and more powerful. But, like the antiabortion whackos, you end up alienating those who should be your closest allies. That's kinda . . . dopey.

I would not join any club that would have me as a member...never mind my wanting YOU to join ME! I could not care less what you opinion is..and my argument is not to dissuade you, but to prove how wrong your logic is. This is not about do you love animals, but why should animal protecters be singled out a TERRORISTS?? does anyone know? ONLY those who threaten the PROFITS of corporations and muslims are terrorists...the timmy mcveighs are just reight wing whackos..one of... and are not a threat to America (profits that is)

Do you really believe the people involved in that suck?

The basic problem is that -- as John Kennedy said -- freedom is indivisible. We have to protect the free speech rights of animal rights activists for the same reason we have to protect the free speech rights of Larry Flynt and the free speech rights of Nazis who want to parade down Main Street. Once they criminalize *anybody's* free speech, then speech is no longer free for any of us.

Sorry, but . . . FAIL.

"Indivisible" means just what it says -- that if any single person is not free to speak as they choose, no one is free.

The Bill of Rights guarantees free speech to pornographers, to Nazi wannabes, and even -- dare I say it -- to chuckleheaded animal rights activists. It also guarantees the right to speak in support of illegal actions so long as that speech doesn't amount to incitement to riot. And to criminalize the speech of any of these marginal groups threatens the rights of all of us.

John Kennedy understood that. I wonder why you persist so determinedly in missing the point.

"What part of 'x' don't you understand?"

What part of "property destruction is wrong" don't you understand? Kennedy was no proponent of that, I can assure you.

The folks in the article feel so passionate about whateverthehellitis that they feel compelled to take it straight to the places where people live and work. They feel their right to express themselves make them immune to other laws.

I think that the kinds of penalties being handed out in this instance for essentially nothing is way beyond rational.

The Feds and these wackos are two peas in a pod.

these people were doing more than just innocently passing out leaflets, chanting, chalking and doing google searches.

The google searches were to target people, and harrass and threaten them. The messages were clearly threatening. That's why their actions are felonies, just as they would be if, as poster above wrote, they were targeting clinics where abortions are performed or threatening the doctors who perform them.

If you were about to testify against a Crip who killed your dry cleaner and his brother whispered "We know where you live." as he brushed past you in the grocery store- would you brush it off as free speech?

The targets of these people are under no obligation to assume that they are nonviolent.

When Amendment 2 was passed, I sent notes to those who contributed to it, telling them that they should be ashamed of themselves. I also wanted them to know that they didn't contribute anonymously. Some of them might have been disturbed by the fact that I had their addresses, but that's quite different from me saying "I know where you live."

with a terrorist threat...THERE YOU JUST KILLED YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!

But the way your post is written, I'm not sure what isn't making sense to you.

I also detest the actions of people who engage in acts of intimidation, violence, etc.

Make no mistake, I love animals (yes, I AM one of those "crazy cat ladies"), but I would never condone the extreme actions listed in the OP.
In fact, they are lucky they didn't pull that home invasion on me, as I would not hesitate to defend myself. I'm afraid someone would be suffering from a serious lead allergy.

...

Jerkoffs.

I don't like when people use tactics that the anti-abortion groups use, right or wrong, and it appears the message they wanted to get out has now been lost - so much for thinking through their tactics. You can be right and still lose an argument and that is what this may end up becoming.

It goes back to 1973 and was created as an association for conservative lawmakers that would do on the state and local level what some of the better known conservative think-tanks were already doing on the national level. It grew out of an ad hoc network sponsored by the American Conservative Union -- the people who still put on CPAC, where Rush Limbaugh did his blubber-bouncing act last winter -- and the late uber-conservative Paul Weyrich was one of its founders.

ALEC provides state legislators with drafts of proposed legislation and tends to operate in concert with groups like Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform and Dick Armey's FreedomWorks. Although it originally focused on issues dear to the hearts of social conservatives, it has long been a hangout for corporate lobbyists

According to http://www.onlinecpi.org/downloads/Target_SD_CPI2005.pdf:

"ALEC has grown into the single most important national organization linking conservative state legislators with major corporations and trade associations. It also serves as a pipeline for ideas and proposals that directly impact how urban policy is framed across a wide range of issues from pension reform to living wage laws. ALEC’s annual summer conferences draw thousands of state legislators, lobbyists and corporate executives together for focused discussion on how to advance a right wing agenda for states and cities. ALEC has been described as 'nothing less than a tax-exempt façade for the country’s largest corporations and kindred entities.'"

An extended article on ALEC, titled "Ghostwriting the Law," appeared in Mother Jones in 2002. That link is http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2002/09/ghostwriting-law and it is probably still the best source of information on the group.

Don't be fooled -- this is not about whether animal rights activists can be a pain in the ass. It's about the increasing effort by corporations to criminalize any opposition to their agenda and use the federal and state governments as their enforcers.

everyone else on earth is prosecuted under non terrorist laws that require actual evidence of harm and law breaking..and not just thought crimes!!!

VP Al Gore's house after he conceded, telling him to get out of Cheney's house. Both are more outrageous and damaging than these citations IMHO.

The Act subjects anyone who (1) uses interstate commerce, (2) with the intent to damage or interfere with an “animal enterprise” or with any person or entity associated with an animal enterprise, and (3) causes any economic damage or corporate profit loss or bodily injury or fear of bodily injury, or (4) conspires or attempts to do any of the foregoing, to prosecution for “animal enterprise terrorism.”

Everyone got that? If I planned a protest outside of KFC headquarters, bang, I'm a terrorist subject to jail time--I wouldn't even have to actually hold the protest, as long as I planned it. A whistleblower inside a circus or slaughterhouse posts video online--terrorist. Hell, even Oprah could've been prosecuted as a terrorist under this statute for saying that she wouldn't eat hamburgers anymore.

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/20-terror-act-against-animal-activists/

I sure don't expect DU to support the SHAC7--not sufficiently sympathetic, even though three of them were convicted on conspiracy charges alone--but I think we should recognize what AETA is and who it benefits.