The Animal Agriculture Alliance says:

As these videos achieve the publicity sought by the groups, the Alliance is concerned that the activist employees providing the tapes are not held accountable for their failure to follow company animal care policies and their failure to immediately report mistreatment to the farm owners or managers.

There have been a slew of investigations in the last several years that have gained international attention. Two recent examples include the Mercy For Animals investigation of an egg hatchery and the Peta investigation of cows at Land O’ Lakes supplier facility.

Rather than stepping up and addressing these abuses, the industry is now arguing that it is the activists who should be punished for bringing them to light.

When I testified before Congress about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, one of the concerns I raised is that the vague and overly broad law could be used to target whistleblowers and undercover investigators as “terrorists” for causing a loss of profits.

Those concerns were dismissed, just as lawmakers dismissed my concerns that the law would be used to target First Amendment activity (concerns that have unfortunately been proven true with the case of the AETA 4).

These investigations pose a serious, continued threat to the animal agriculture industry. The writing is on the wall, and they know it. They need to do everything in their power to make sure that people are not exposed to the realities of factory farms, even if that means utterly absurd campaigns like this one to arrest the activists who expose abuses.

Make no mistake: if these investigations continue, and they will, these corporations will escalate their tactics by campaigning for the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act to be used against them.

Related posts:

1. Internal Industry Documents Show Plans for Labeling Activists as “Eco-Terrorists” (Part 1 of 3)
2. Animal Rights Activists Indicted as “Terrorists” For Home Protests
3. How Corporate Provacateurs Made Fran Trutt an “Animal Rights Terrorist”

For instance, this “spotter card” was distributed to police officers in preparation for protests at Britain’s largest arms fair. According to the Guardian:

These so-called “spotter cards” are issued by police to identify individuals they consider to be potential troublemakers because they have appeared at a number of demonstrations.

One of the individuals featured at ‘H’ is Mark Thomas, a comedian and political activist. He has no criminal record. In a column, he noted how this scaremongering reflects truly misplaced priorities:

While being wanted outside the arms fair, I was legitimately inside researching a book on the subject, and uncovered four companies illegally promoting “banned” torture equipment.

Perhaps the most important bit of information, I think, is buried a bit in the story. According to this investigative piece by the Guardian:

Acpo’s national infrastructure for dealing with domestic extremism was set up with the backing of the Home Office in an attempt to combat animal rights activists who were committing serious crimes. Senior officers concede the criminal activity associated with these groups has receded, but the units dealing with domestic extremism have expanded their remit to incorporate campaign groups across the political spectrum, including anti-war and environmental groups that have only ever engaged in peaceful direct action.

If you’re familiar with this site and the Green Scare, you know that one of the key points I try to hit home, repeatedly, is that environmental and animal rights activists may be among the first targets in these political crackdowns, but they will not be the last. By the admission of some government officials in the UK, this has clearly been the case.

Whether or not that has been the official policy in the United States, the same dynamic is at play. If we do not stop the terrorism rhetoric, legislation, court cases and scare-mongering in its tracks, no activist and no social movement will remain untouched.

Of course, you could always just continue listening to the soundbites of police and government officials, like this one from Anton Setchell, who is in charges of the “domestic extremism” unit in the UK. People who find themselves on the databases, he says, “should not worry at all.”

Related posts:

1. Legal Handbook for Animal Rights and Environmental Activists
2. Animal Rights Activists Indicted as “Terrorists” For Home Protests
3. Animal Rights Activist Named Alongside Bin Laden on FBI’s Terrorist List

And so it begins: Earthrace, one of the fastest powerboats on the planet, has been given a full Sea Shepherd makeover. From kevlar body armor to undetectable broadband radar, nightvision systems, Iridium openport comms, and a new paint job that actually scatters radar signals and provides additional stealth. If Earthrace was badass before, it’s now firmly somewhere in the ninth circle of hell giving Satan a hard time.

Sea Shepherd’s Operation Waltzing Matilda against the Japanese whaling fleet begins this December.

Um, if the Japanese whalers thought Sea Shepherd was a “terrorist organization” before (and so was Animal Planet, they said), I can’t wait to hear what they have to say after seeing Captain Paul Watson in control of this beast.

No word yet whether the U.S. Attorney’s Office will be investigating Bruce Wayne for violating the “material support” terrorism provisions of the Patriot Act.

Related posts:

1. “Animal Planet Collaborated with Eco-Terrorists”
2. Canadian Police Ask Sea Shepherd Officer if He is Planning “a 9/11 or something”

About 20 activists were protesting Aquarium & Pet Center in Santa Monica, which they say sells dogs bred in puppy mills in inhumane conditions.

Carole Raphaelle Davis, the West Coast director of the Companion Animal Protection Society, said store employees have threatened the protesters and were seen laughing after three activists were hit.

The shooting resulted in minor injuries, including welts.

“It’s shocking to think that people would try to intimidate people or cause them harm simply because they expressed their views,” said WeHo council member Jeffrey Prang, who has been working with the group to write a municipal ban on the re-selling of any pets except bred or rescued animals in West Hollywood.

The incident is disturbing enough on its own, but it needs to be put in a broader context. The animal rights and environmental movements are labeled the “number one domestic terrorism threat,” according to the FBI. Some elements of those movements have engaged in property destruction, economic sabotage and arson. In the history of the U.S. animal rights movement, though, not one person has ever been targeted with physical violence and no one has been shot.

If an animal rights activist had committed a crime like this, against an animal researcher for instance, they would undoubtedly be prosecuted as a “terrorists” under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

In fact, the government’s threshold for what constitutes “terrorism” is much, much lower when it comes to the conduct of animal rights and environmental activists. Right now, four animal rights activists in California are facing charges under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for chanting and chalking slogans on the sidewalk. They’re being labeled “terrorists.”

Incidents like this should be it abundantly clear that there are two systems of law in this country. One is for the wealthy, the corporations, the animal research industry. If they are under attack, they can lobby for new terrorism legislation and pressure the politicians and government officials who represent them to crack down on the “terrorists.” They can carve out special crimes to protect them, and only them.

The other system of law is for everybody else. If they are under attack–through violence, not just home protests or economic sabotage–well, it’s just business as usual.

So what do you think? Will the government labeling this violent, politically-motivated crime “terrorism”?

Related posts:

1. South Dakota “Eco-terrorism” Law Shot Down as Unnecessary
2. Animal Rights Protesters Face Higher Sentences than Racist Cross Burners
3. White Supremacist Opens Fire at Holocaust Museum, But Will it Be Labeled “Terrorism”?

Carrie Feldman, a 20-year-old woman from Minneapolis, has been subpoenaed to a federal grand jury in Iowa in what appears to be yet another attempt to harass and intimidate political activists. She faces up to a year in jail if held in contempt for refusing to cooperate with the grand jury.

As you can see in Feldman’s grand jury subpoena, the government provides few details about what is actually being investigated. That’s no accident: grand juries, by design, are secretive and conducted outside of public scrutiny in a legal void where basic Fifth and First Amendment rights do not apply. [Here is a handy booklet on grand juries with much more information.] If activists refuse to participate in the political witch-hunt, they can face serious jail time. Jordan Halliday has done exactly that with a Utah Grand Jury, and he is facing federal criminal contempt charges.

There’s a very good chance the grand jury is investigating a 2004 Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa (video of the raid is embedded here), for a few reasons. It was a very high profile crime at the time, and both the university and the FBI have indicated it is a top priority. Also, at the preliminary hearing by the grand jury, a witness asked a question that Feldman says related to that investigation.

After that raid, the University of Iowa announced that its new, $11.2 million animal experimentation facility would be underground. As an anonymous activist wrote on the TwinCities Indymedia page:

“Like the torture of animals, grand juries, too, are only at their most effective when done as intended, in secret.”

If the new underground lab at the University of Iowa is intended to deter both legal and illegal animal rights activity, that’s not going to happen. When I sent around a news article about that on Twitter a while back, an aboveground activist responded in a way that I think reflects the mentality of many people in the animal rights and environmental movements: “They’re building their labs underground now? I guess we’ll just have to get shovels.”

And if this new grand jury is intended to harass and intimidate political activists… well, I think they picked the wrong activist and the wrong community to target. Carrie Feldman is active with EWOK (Earth Warriors are OK), which has been active on local Green Scare issues. She also works with the Coldsnap Legal Collective and the RNC 8 support committee, experience that is clearly reflected in her statement to the grand jury:

First of all, I would like to state, unequivocally and most certainly for the record, that I have no intention of testifying before this grand jury. Based on information from the prosecutor indicating that I may be a target of this investigation, I am invoking my Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. But beyond that, I am refusing to cooperate based on a sincere belief that to do so would run counter to my deeply held convictions and values.

Grand juries were originally created to prevent arbitrary indictments, but are now used as a tool of the prosecution to gather information. Grand juries undercut basic rights supposedly granted in the Constitution by denying access to counsel and coercing testimony. They are now, and have been for some time, used to investigate and intimidate those who would express dissent.

This is only effective when we are complicit, when we are frightened, when we are divided. Today my voice may waver, as I stand alone in this room. But I know I speak with the voice of every one of my friends, loved ones, and comrades when I say this: We will not be intimidated. We will not cooperate. I have nothing more to say to you.

• Carrie Feldman’s support website:
  http://supportcarrie.wordpress.com/

Related posts:

1. Jordan Halliday Faces Trial on Contempt Charges for Resisting Grand Jury
2. Grand Jury 101 From the Rockford Files
3. FBI Admits Utah Grand Jury May Lead to ALF “Sympathy Attacks”

From CCR:

Federal law enforcement agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have a dark history of targeting radical and progressive movements. Some of the dirty tricks they use against these movements include: the infiltration of organizations to discredit and disrupt their operations; campaigns of misinformation and false stories in the media; forgery of correspondence; fabrication of evidence; and the use of grand jury subpoenas to intimidate activists. Today’s activist must know and understand the threat posed by federal law enforcement agents and their tactics as well as several key security practices that offer the best protection.

Federal agents have many tools at their disposal to target activists. While it is important to know and understand these tools and tactics, it is of critical importance that you resist any paranoia of government surveillance or fear of infiltration, which will only serve to paralyze you or your organization in your quest for social change. If fear of government repression prevents you from organizing, the agents of repression will have won without even trying.

I think it is worth noting that in the recent appellate ruling in the SHAC 7 case, the court argued that educational materials on the SHAC website were relevant to the “terrorism” charges against them. Specifically, the court noted that the SHAC website had “a series of links dedicated to educating activists on how to evade investigators. These links were entitled, ‘Ears and Eyes Everywhere,’ ‘Dealing with Interrogation,’ ‘When an Agent Knocks,’ and ‘Illegal Activity.’”

Clearly, knowing your rights is perceived as a dangerous, dangerous thing. So get to it.

Thanks to Matthew for the link, and the excellent work on this publication.

Related posts:

1. 5 Reasons for Activists to Cover Their Faces at Protests
2. FBI’s 5-Step Process to Criminalize First Amendment Activity as “Terrorism”
3. How Corporate Provacateurs Made Fran Trutt an “Animal Rights Terrorist”

As a brief introduction: The “SHAC 7” of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty ran an effective campaign that had the sole purpose of putting Huntingdon Life Sciences, a notorious animal testing company, out of business. The campaign pressured corporations to sever ties with the lab. The SHAC 7 were never accused of breaking windows or releasing animals from labs, but they supported those who did. They published a website which posted news of both legal and illegal tactics, and supported all of it. The website had also posted names and addresses of individuals connected to the corporations targeted.

The ruling was issued today and, although there are many aspects that deserve attention, I want to walk through what I think are by far the most dangerous and troubling implications of this ruling–those related to the First Amendment:

[PDF of the SHAC appeal ruling]

Supporting and facilitating non-violent civil disobedience is not protected speech.

As part of their campaign, SHAC supporters were emailed about “electronic civil disobedience.” The email and message board posts included instructions on how electronically “sit in” on corporate web sites through emails, faxes and phone calls.

Now, one of the benchmarks in First Amendment law is what is called the Brandenburg standard. It holds that even the most controversial and inflammatory speech is protected as long as it not likely to incite “imminent and lawless action.” That is a very high threshold. In this court ruling—which, to the best of my knowledge and the attorneys I have spoken with is the first of its kind—the written word can be construed as promoting, or resulting in, imminent and lawless action.

To put it more plainly: Vocally supporting civil disobedience, explaining what it involves, and encouraging/facilitating people to take part is not protected speech.

This is so important let me say it again, another way: People who write about civil disobedience and encourage people to take part can be found convicted of a crime even if they do not take part in the civil disobedience.

This has dangerous implications far beyond this case. For instance, I wrote about the recent call by mainstream environmental groups for massive non-violent civil disobedience in defense of the environment. Under this reasoning, organizers of that event who published a website aren’t protected by the First Amendment.

[UPDATE: One person had this question, so others might as well: I am not at all saying that simply endorsing civil disobedience is now not protected speech. However, doing so and also facilitating civil disobedience is what the court ruled is not protected. So in the example above, the organizers promoted civil disobedience, encouraged it, set up a website telling people where to go and when, and there were people involved to specifically support those arrested. I think there is a very real danger of that type of conduct being affected by the reasoning presented in this ruling. That is what I had meant by the headline and preceding points.]

Fiery rhetoric is a “true threat” when illegal conduct has taken place in the same campaign.

Another measurement of whether speech is protected by the First Amendment is whether it is a true threat. Throughout the appellate court ruling, the court argued that SHAC’s speech did, in fact, constitute a true threat.

SHAC pressured corporations to divest and sever ties with HLS and “used past incidents to instill fear in future targets” (by publicizing illegal conduct, supporting that conduct). “In this regard, their actions meet the standard of a “true threat” as articulated in Watts, because viewed in context, the speeches, protests, and web postings, were all tools to further their effort.”

The court’s reasoning goes something like this: SHAC wants to close HLS, SHAC supports legal and illegal activity, therefore when SHAC targets a new corporation there is a true threat that the company will be the victim of illegal activity. So SHAC’s speech is not protected.

There are two huge problems with this. The first is that social movements throughout history have had both legal and illegal components. I have interviewed countless activists who only take part in legal protest, but vocally and unequivocally support illegal tactics, and recognize their role in the broader movement. The court argues that it doesn’t matter if you are not breaking the law; if you support illegal tactics, note their efficacy, and believe they play a role in the broader movement and your own campaigning, it is tantamount to a “true threat.”

The second problem is that no action by animal rights or environmental activists in the United States has ever resulted in physical injury or death. Not one. That’s by the admission of the FBI and DHS, along with groups that track animal rights crimes, like the Southern Poverty Law Center. It defies logic how even the most outlandish rhetoric can be construed as a “true threat” that places someone in reasonable fear of physical violence, when the movement has never engaged in physical violence.

The Animal Enterprise Protection Act and “animal enterprise terrorism” charges can be applied to First Amendment activity.

The court ruled that the defendants were guilty of “conspiracy” to commit animal enterprise terrorism because of:

Speech—Josh Harper “wrote editorials and gave speeches praising militant tactics and direct action.”
Running a website—Jake Conroy “designed and maintained multiple websites affiliated with SHAC–the primary tools of the campaign against Huntingdon.”
Protest—Andy Stepanian told Kevin Kjonaas “that he could not explain over an unprotected phone line what protest activity he had planned for the following weeks.” (The court argues that this implied illegal activity).
Computer encryption–Kjonaas and Gazzola used “encryption devices and programs to wipe their computer hard drives” and protect their email. “While alone this evidence is not enough to demonstrate agreement, when viewed in context, it is circumstantial evidence of their agreement to participate in illegal activity,” the court said. To most people, it is evidence of their intent to protect their privacy from FBI spying.

This Ruling is Bigger than the SHAC 7

This ruling is disappointing, to put it mildly, for the SHAC 7 defendants still behind bars. They will serve the remainder of their sentence in prison and, if this appellate court decision stands, be forever marked as “terrorists.”

But this case is much bigger than the SHAC 7, and it is bigger than the animal rights movement. The AETA 4 are facing terrorism charges for chalking slogans and protesting with masks. Climate groups are organizing massive civil disobedience campaigns. These movements continue to grow, and so does the crackdown against them.

This is critical time in American history. Corporations, working alongside ambitious prosecutors, are radically expanding cultural and legal conceptions of “terrorism” in order to push a political agenda. Mainstream animal and environmental groups, the press, civil liberties groups, they have all largely remained silent on this historic case. As a result, this appellate court has issued its sweeping ruling with impunity.

It is all too easy to weaken the First Amendment when it comes to the rights of “radicals” and “extremists.” It is even easier when no one is paying attention.

Related posts:

1. Mafia Law Used Against Environmentalists for Tree Sits, Civil Disobedience, Blog Post
2. Recap of the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty “Terrorism” Appeal in Philadelphia
3. FBI’s 5-Step Process to Criminalize First Amendment Activity as “Terrorism”

Related posts:

1. Herbivore Magazine Article on the SHAC 7: “The World Takes? How corporations and politicians turned animal rights activists into terrorists”
2. Appellate Court: Encouraging Civil Disobedience is Not Protected Speech

The grand jury is investigating the release of thousands of mink from Utah ranches. Jordan Halliday has already served several months in jail for contempt of court for refusing to testify, and now the grand jury is going after him again.

Grand juries can compel people to testify without representation by an attorney. They are conducted in secret, and exist as a legal vacuum where First and Fifth Amendment rights can be deemed by a judge to no longer apply.

[Here's a "Grand Jury 101 from the Rockford Files."]

Halliday has a federal public defender in this case, but still needs to raise about $600 to pay his previous attorney; if you would like to make a donation, please visit his support website, www.SupportJordan.com.

Related posts:

1. FBI Admits Utah Grand Jury May Lead to ALF “Sympathy Attacks”
2. Grand Jury 101 From the Rockford Files
3. Activist to Iowa Grand Jury: “We will not be intimidated. We will not cooperate.”

Elliot Madison is a social worker and anarchist who was arrested in Pittsburgh on Sept. 24 and “charged with hindering apprehension or prosecution, criminal use of a communication facility and possession of instruments of crime.” In plain English: police say he used Twitter to spread information about police movements during the G20 protests in order to help activists avoid arrest.

Madison worked with a group called the Tin Can Communications Collective to help activists communicate during the G20, creating a decentralized version of Twitter. Journalists from around the world, including CNN, subscribed to the service and viewed the messages posted. Madison told Democracy Now: “We put on the—about different trainings. There was a Know Your Rights training. We talked about the—there were messages I received about the raid on the Just Seeds food bus. There was information about where meet-ups were for different marches, like the students’ march. To be honest, I didn’t see most of the messages, because I was arrested very early on Thursday.”

The message in question that apparently led to the arrest was an announcement that said that the police had issued an order to disperse. The police allege that the message was intended to hinder arrests and prosecution (by that logic, the police making the announcement to arrest would also be an example of hindering arrests and prosecution).

Madison’s home was raided, and police took, among other things, Curious George stuffed animals and a needlepoint made by his wife’s grandmother of Lenin.

To put this in context, police have used sonic weapons during the G20 protests, they have beat and tear-gassed protesters and students and random people, they demanded that crowds of non-protesting passersby disperse or be attacked. These are many of the same tactics used during the DNC and RNC protests. [In this political context I, as a journalist, would sure as hell love to know where the police are, if nothing else so I don't get beaten.]

Of course, the government is spinning the Twitter usage as a demon tool of anarchist organizers to incite violence. [Just as books are a demon tool of anarchists to, well, educate themselves]. We see this time and again at these mass protests–police beat random people in the streets while simultaneously trying to pick off certain individuals as “leaders.” During the RNC protests, organizers were arrested, demonized as “anarchists,” and hit with terrorism charges for spearheading local organizing with a wide-ranging coalition.

I ran across this article from last year, sent by a reader, about a U.S. Army intelligence report warning that terrorists may be using Twitter. An excerpt from the report:

“Twitter has also become a social activism tool for socialists, human rights groups, communists, vegetarians, anarchists, religious communities, atheists, political enthusiasts, hacktivists and others to communicate with each other and to send messages to broader audiences,” the report said.

It goes on to say, “Extremist and terrorist use of Twitter could evolve over time to reflect tactics that are already evolving in use by hacktivists and activists…”

It would be laughable if it weren’t so prescient.

As Madison told Democracy Now:

“We’re not—we’re not the first. We’re the first in this country. During the Twitter revolution going on in Iran, in Moldova, in Guatemala, in the earlier newscast about Honduras, in all those cases, repressive governments have arrested folks for using Twitter. The only difference is, in all those cases the State Department, the US State Department, has condemned the arrest of these Twitter activists and had gone so far in the Iranian situation, the State Department, according to an article, asked Twitter to postpone its regular maintenance so as not to interfere with Iranian protesters to be able to send out their tweets. So the only difference is we’re the first arrested here.”

I’ve been wary of Twitter, but I’m slowly growing to love it. Sign up to follow me on Twitter and try it out. Because if the government is concerned about activists using Twitter… well, I think that’s reason enough to give it a shot.

Related posts:

1. Are You on Twitter?
2. FBI Arrests 4 Activists as “Terrorists” for Chalking Slogans, Leafleting and Protesting
3. Military Pull Activist Into Unmarked Car at G20 Protests