New definition of terrorism (UPDATE)

Now, members of the ASPCA -- I'm not kidding: The ASPCA -- may stand accused of terrorism.

H.R. 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), is a bill that could 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” would include manufacturers, distributors and sellers of animals or animal products, research facilities, pet stores, breeders, zoos, rodeos, circuses, and animal shelters and the like.

While the ASPCA strongly opposes acts of violence, including vandalism, property damage and trespass, this bill threatens to criminalize as “terrorism” otherwise lawful, constitutionally protected acts often utilized by citizens and organizations to effect change. Lawful and peaceful protests that, for example, urge a consumer boycott of a company that does not use humane procedures, could be the target of this provision if the activity resulted in economic damage to the company.

The bill would also make it illegal to expose cruel conditions at facilities such as puppy mills and research labs, if exposure of such conditions—even if done lawfully—would result in economic damage to the animal enterprise. There is no exemption in the bill to exclude “economic damage” that results from the disclosure of information about a company’s treatment of animals, which is disclosed through public information.

Read this important interview with Andrew Stepanian, who enters prison today for a precursor to this act. He merely exercised his right to protest:

I sat through a court case of about 40 days, and at the end of it, I was convicted, mainly on evidence stemming from my attendance at a protest against an auditing firm by the name of Deloitte & Touche. The prosecutors claim that because Deloitte & Touche severed its relationship with Huntingdon Life Sciences, Huntingdon Life Sciences may have incurred more than $10,000 in damages. And as long as a threshold of $10,000 is met, I could participate in legal activities leading up to that point, but the second I cause $10,000 of intellectual damage, then I could be charged under this conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. I would be charged with a substantive charge if I actually destroyed some property, for example, that was worth $10,000, but in this case, it was a purely intellectual matter.

And that demonstration, in particular, the Nassau County Police in Long Island appeared on the scene. They didn’t find any reason to cite any of the people in attendance of the demonstration, including myself, and I was more than open about my attendance at that demonstration.

In other words, rightwingers have a right to harrass visitors to an abortion clinic. But when you peacefully protest a firm that has anything to do with animals, you no longer have any right to free speech.