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 SHACthe 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 encryptionKjonaas 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:
- Mafia Law Used Against Environmentalists for Tree Sits, Civil Disobedience, Blog Post
- Recap of the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty "Terrorism" Appeal in Philadelphia
- FBI's 5-Step Process to Criminalize First Amendment Activity as "Terrorism"
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
