Call your Representatives to express your concerns about the impact the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act could have on free speech and other constitutionally protected activities.
Earlier this year, the Senate passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), and the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed its own version of the bill on November 13. It is expected to go to conference - where members of both chambers will work to reconcile the two bills - before Congress adjourns for the year. The House version of the AETA (H.R. 4239) poses a serious threat to many forms of political participation including peaceful protests, boycotts, media or internet campaigns, and leafleting. It also contains vague and overly broad language that could define as a terrorist act any activity that results in loss of profit to a business classified as an "animal enterprise."
The AETA was drafted and pushed through by the lobbyist group American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in association with the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance. ALEC has the support of over 300 large corporations, including those in the tobacco, petroleum, pharmaceutical and transportation areas. The bill would make illegal any action taken for the purpose of "disrupting an animal enterprise." Under the proposed law, animal rights activists engaging in nonviolent forms of protest that cause "economic damage or disruption", including "loss of profits" could be fined heavily and sentenced to unreasonably long terms of imprisonment.
The AETA seeks to amend the 1992 Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA - PL 102-346), a section under Title 18 of the criminal code. The AETA is unnecessary since the 1992 law provides for punishment of those who physically disrupt an animal enterprise, and other sections of the criminal code provide for punishment for vandalism, property loss, criminal trespass, harassment, assault and bodily injury. The bill's additional penalties would severely punish any economic damage resulting from any action intended to disrupt an animal enterprise with prison sentences of up to 10 years. More problematically however, the AETA would punish anyone who conspires or attempts to disrupt the operations of an animal industry corporation or cause economic damage with the same fines and prison penalties as for the substantive offense.
If these proposed changes are signed into law, constitutionally protected activities could be prosecuted as acts of terrorism. For example, a boycott of an animal enterprise that resulted in lost profits could be prosecuted as a terrorist act under the AETA. In fact, even a web-based effort to expose violations of animal welfare laws could result in prosecution under the AETA if it results in a loss of profit. By vastly broadening the classification of criminal acts punishable under the current law, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act could significantly chill activities traditionally protected by the First Amendment. Moreover, AETA could make animal rights groups more vulnerable to federal wiretapping and surveillance. A court will be far more likely to find probable cause for the vague crime of causing economic damage or disruption than for a crime that requires evidence that the group is planning to engage in illegal "physical disruption."
There are important differences between the Senate and the House versions that must be reconciled by members of both chambers. Once the two bills are reconciled, the final version of the bill will go to the floor of each chamber for a final vote. If the reconciled bill passes both chambers of Congress, it will be sent to President Bush to be signed into law.
Please fax a letter or call your Representative to let them know that you are concerned about the potential threats to free speech and political participation posed by the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (H.R. 4239).
You can find contact information for your Representative by visiting www.congress.org and entering your zip code.
Use these key points in your letter or when you call your member of Congress: