Protesting Mis-treatment of Animals is Now Terrorism?

Bushco will gladly tell you terrorism is what they tell you it is and the corporate "News" media will meekly agree.
--

A new breed of terrorists
by Lori Lovely

One of the final pieces of legislation approved during the second session of the 109th Congress, signed into law by President Bush on Nov. 27, 2006, was the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA). Passed unanimously in the Senate, it slipped through the House by a voice vote under suspension of the rules when only six representatives were present.
According to the language of the act, causing any business classified as an “animal enterprise” — including animal factories, fur farms, puppy mills, research labs, zoos, rodeos and circuses — to suffer a profit loss is a crime, punishable by fines and imprisonment, even if the company’s financial decline is caused by legal protests, peaceful demonstrations, consumer boycotts, whistle-blowing or undercover investigations of animal abuse.
According to William Rivas-Rivas, PETA’s major gifts officer, no other industrial sector in U.S. history has ever been given such legal protection against people exercising their First Amendment free-speech rights. “Passage of this act is a great disservice to humans and other animals, and serves only to intimidate those who advocate for more humane treatment of animals. On a personal note, as a former U.S. Naval Officer and Persian Gulf veteran, it offends me to have someone suggest speaking out for animals is terrorism.”
PETA and Rivas-Rivas aren’t the only ones offended by the law. Opposition comes from thousands of constituents and more than 160 groups, including the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, American Civil Liberties Union, League of Humane Voters, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and the Humane Society of the U.S. (A complete list of all the organizations opposed to AETA is available at www.noaeta.org/opposition.)
Complaints against the bill include its broad reach and its vagueness. Critics allege that AETA threatens legitimate advocacy by using ambiguous terms that can be interpreted to include lawful, peaceful actions. In a letter to Congress, the ACLU wrote, “The AETA criminalizes activities such as demonstrations, leafleting, undercover investigations and boycotts. It will effectively chill and deter Americans from exercising their First Amendment rights to advocate for reforms in the treatment of animals.”
Opponents also believe the legislation threatens First Amendment rights of free speech. By setting a precedent for punishing content-based speech, it creates a slippery slope whereby any unfavorable group can be labeled as terrorists and targeted for punishment.
Continue: