Setting aside claims of vagueness, a divided federal appeals court is upholding the constitutionality of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, a statute that makes it a crime to encourage “physical disruption” or “economic damage” against animal-research centers.
Thursday’s decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was the first time an appellate court has grappled with the free speech issues raised by the law, reviewing the case of radical animal-rights activists who were convicted in 2006 of using e-mail and websites to encourage violence — including bombings — against a New Jersey animal-research center, its shareholders, office holders, bankers and others affiliated with it.
The six ranking members of the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty group, some of whom were sentenced to up to six years in prison, argued that the 2002 statute, amended in 2006, has a chilling effect on speech because of its ambiguity.
The defendants maintained that, among other things, they simply espoused protests and released names and addresses of people who should be subject to protests, in a bid to pressure change at New Jersey’s Huntingdon Life Sciences. The company tests mice, rats, dogs, monkeys and guinea pigs for big pharma, agribusiness, veterinarians and medical-implant companies.
What ensued were bombings, the release of animals from the research facility, the destruction of ATMs, the sinking of boats, and even “virtual sit-ins” — distributed denial of service attacks done the old-fashioned way, with thousands of protesters repeatedly clicking targeted websites to slow or shutter them.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/animals/Because money and profit are more important than anything else. Oh, and Wired did a shit job on this article.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
