US House of Representatives Passes AETA — Start the Bail Fundraisers Now!
It looks like the lame duck Congress just had to get in a few last licks at free speech and the fight for animal welfare!
With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy but once this bill is completely approved by both the Senate and the House “You May be an Animal Terrorist If…”
-
You call for a boycott of stores that sell puppy mill pets!
You call for a boycott of groups supporting puppy mills (like the Amish)!
You peacefully protest outside of puppy mills, puppy mill auctions or stores that sell dogs and cats!
You write a letter or blog entry that encourages legislation stopping puppy mills!
You encourage a boycott of companies that use animals for testing or research!
I could go on but by now you should have the picture! AETA is an attempt to stop those of us fighting for the rights of animals!
So as I said in the title — start fundraising for the bail bonds now! I think Tammy Grimes may be getting a LOT of company in the courtroom!
We MUST encourage the incoming Senate and House members to IMMEDIATELY REVIEW AETA and STRIKE IT DOWN!
Thanks to the Animal Protection Institute for this update!
UPDATE — Congress Passes HR 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
As anticipated, H.R. 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), was brought to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in a fast-track maneuver late yesterday, on the Representatives’ first day back after the month-long break.
The House passed AETA by a voice vote under suspension of the rules, a procedure usually reserved for non-controversial legislation. When the bill came up for consideration, only a handful of House members were even back in town, and very few were on the floor of the House when the brief discussion ensued. This bill was rushed through without a serious look at its flaws, by Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI).Next Steps
Because the language of AETA passed by the House varies from the language approved by the Senate in the companion bill, S. 3880, a conference committee will reconcile the differences between the bills. Once the differences are resolved and a conference report is generated, both the House and Senate will need to approve the legislation again.
To keep updated on AETA and for more detailed information, visit www.stopaeta.org and www.noaeta.org.
Background
AETA seeks to clamp down on animal activist activities by using a broad brush to paint activists as “terrorists” simply because they oppose institutionalized animal cruelty. Sponsored by Representative Thomas Petri (R-WI), HR 4239 would make it a crime punishable by imprisonment to cause any business classified as an “animal enterprise” to suffer a loss of profit — even if the company’s financial decline is the result of legal activities, such as peaceful protests, consumer boycotts, or media campaigns. The term “animal enterprise;” includes manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of animals or animal products including research facilities, pet stores, breeders, zoos, rodeos, circuses, furriers, animal shelters, and the like.
API strongly opposes acts of violence, including vandalism and property damage. However, this bill threatens to criminalize as “terrorism” otherwise lawful, constitutionally protected and valuable acts often utilized by citizens and organizations seeking change. For example, lawful and peaceful protests against the circus or companies that test on animals could be considered a violation of this act if the activity resulted in economic damage to the company.
To find out how your U.S. Representative voted on AETA, please contact his/her office. If your Representative voted against AETA, please thank him or her. On the other hand, if your Representative voted for AETA, politely express your concerns (see talking points below). You can reach your Representative through U.S. Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121. To identify your Congressperson, go to www.house.gov or www.senate.gov, or simply enter your zip code at www.vote-smart.org.
Talking Points
AETA does not genuinely fight terrorism. AETA may divert valuable taxpayer money and resources away from real terrorism.
AETA is vague and overly broad. AETA isn’t just about illegal actions like breaking windows or rescuing animals from fur farms. It includes penalties for “non-violent physical obstruction” and actions that do not harm people or property. It could label civil disobedience, whistle-blowing, undercover investigations, and aggressive — yet nonviolent — campaigns as “terrorism” if they hurt corporate profits.
AETA limits free speech. Labeling nonviolent actions as “terrorism” and prosecuting them as federal crimes will have a chilling effect on free speech. You shouldn’t have to be afraid of being labeled a “terrorist” for speaking up for animals.
Corporate profits aren’t a national security priority. There are better ways to spend scarce anti-terrorism resources than protecting corporate interests and targeting animal activists as “terrorists.”
Okay to Forward/Crosspost
This is outrageous!! According to AETA, I just may be one of the biggest terrorists in this country. Boycotts, peaceful protests, and campaigns are all protected under the First Amendment, and are the main tools we have in our fight for animal welfare.
Please contact your representative and senators about this. It really can make a difference!
Hey Pups I did post a Follow Up Thread: GOOD NEWS: An update on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (S. 3880) to this one after I heard back from my Senator.
She assured me that:
HERE’S THE REALLY IMPORTANT PART
I am an original cosponsor of this legislation,
which the Senate passed with an amendment by
unanimous consent. This amendment clarified that the
substantive offense created by the bill requires proof of
intentional damage to real or personal property, not
simply a loss of profits, and also eliminated the
misdemeanor of physical obstruction of animal
enterprises. All First Amendment-protected activities,
such as picketing, lawful protests and boycotts, and other
peaceful demonstrations, are now exempted from the
bill’s coverage. The final bill that the Senate-passed
would clearly protect the actions of law-abiding
protesters, while distinguishing and appropriately
penalizing the criminal activities of extremists.
Now whether or not the amendment was included and approved by the House I don’t know. But it would be worth looking into before assuming a worst case scenario. Jack brought up some really good points in the other thread about how difficult it is for many of us to understand the legal terminology when it comes down to reading the actual text of a bill… So still contact your congress people and ask for explainations that you want to make sure your first amendment rights were upheld as this bill was passed.
Thanks Kitai for that update!
My main concern is that the forces behind this bill REALLY WANT the House version and will try to make sure it gets completed before the lame duck session ends. Of course, we can then encourage the new Congress to put it down but with everything else they have on their plates I don’t know how long that could take.
I would definitely encourage everyone to take this bill very seriously and not assume that someone else will handle it.
Joy-
Here’s part of the actual text of bill S.3880, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, the one that’s in front of Bush to sign. It’s very straightforward. It took me about 10 seconds to look it up on the internet. I suggest you do the same in the future.
“(e) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.–Nothing in this section shall be construed–
“(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution;
“(2) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference; or
“(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this action, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies.”.
Patch’s Mom,
This version is very straightforward. Unfortunately, this is not the version passed by the House. This is the Senate version which was intended to protect medical and other researchers from fears of physical terrorism. This is also the version that some in the scientific community got behind.
But this bill took a wrong turn when it went through the House. There it got manhandled and mangled and became a freedom of speech nightmare.
Now the two versions must be reconciled and I hope that the original Senate supporters will make a point of returning the bill to its’ original purpose.
Thanks again for barking!