Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA)

this act isn't outlawing protest or anything of that sort. It's just saying that if someone steals from or damages an animal enterprise they will be fined or impisoned. It isn't based on making an enterprise lose business but rather physical property itself. I am opposed to this act as it claims animals to be property, but it's not much different than the existing laws we have.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992".

SEC. 2. ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM.

(a) IN GENERAL.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 42 the following:

"§ 43. Animal enterprise terrorism

"(a) OFFENSE.--Whoever--
"(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, for the purpose of causing physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise; and

"(2) intentionally causes physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing, damaging, or causing the loss of, any property (including animals or records) used by the animal enterprise, and thereby causes economic damage exceeding $10,000 to that enterprise, or conspires to do so; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

"(b) AGGRAVATED OFFENSE.--

"(1) SERIOUS BODILY INJURY.-- Whoever in the course of a violation of subsection (a) causes serious bodily injury to another individual shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

"(2) DEATH.--Whoever in the course of a violation of subsection (a) causes the death of an individual shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for life or for any term of years.

"(c) RESTITUTION.-- An order of restitution under section 3663 of this title with respect to a violation of this section may also include restitution--

"(1) for the reasonable cost of repeating any experimentation that was interrupted or invalidated as a result of the offense; and

"(2)) the loss of food production or farm income reasonably attributable to the offense.

"d) DEFINITIONS.-- As used in this section--
"(1) the term 'animal enterprise' means--

"(A) a commercial or academic enterprise that uses animals for food or fiber production, agriculture, research, or testing;
"(B) a zoo, aquarium, circus, rodeo, or lawful competitive animal event; or
"(C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences;

"(2) the term 'physical disruption' does not include any lawful disruption that results from lawful public, governmental, or animal enterprise employee reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;

"(3) the term 'economic damage' means the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, or the loss of profits; and

"(4) the term 'serious bodily injury' has the meaning given that term in section 1365 of this title.

"9e) NON-PREEMPTION.--Nothing in this section preempts any State law.".

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The item relating to section 43 in table of sections at the beginning of chapter 3 of title, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

"43. Animal enterprise terrorism.".

"physical disruption" is a lot more inclusive than stealing or damaging property. If I hand out leaflets in front of a business, that counts as "physical disruption", and if that business traffics animals I could go to jail. And if the law holds up, you'll see it extended to all business in short order and the first amendment will no longer be recognized in the US.

forget this commoncircle online space for anything meaningful

thanks for clearing that up

"this act isn't outlawing protest or anything of that sort. It's just saying that if someone steals from or damages an animal enterprise they will be fined or impisoned."

Not really, this is allowing for the designation of anyone interfering with "animal enterprise" to be prosecuted as a "terrorist." The precedent set is pretty strong in blurring the line between direct action that might include property crime (which is already illegal) and "terrorism." If such actions are already illegal, why would anyone want this?

YES, it IS criminalizing activities once protected by the 1st amendment. Yes, it is.

In case you are not aware of this, Josh Harper and 5 other animal rights activists were just tried, convicted, and setenced to years and years in prison under this very act. Josh got 3 years. Not one of the charges against him or any other defendant in this case (see SHAC 7) has to do with any direct action. Not one. Every single charge in this case had to do with something these people said, or something they wrote. Every, single, one. And yet they are all in prison now.

Wake up.

The text of the Act you've included in this story appears to be the version currently on the books. Your story, however, refers to a version of the AETA that the Senate just approved (and is therefore not on the books) that makes the existing AETA worse.

So, if I'm wrong let me know, but my bet is that the version the Senate just approved is the one we should be looking at and critiquing. This version has been around for years, and is damaging enough (just ask the SHAC 7). If it's about to get worse, we should be familiar with the new version.

Free speech and protests, boycotts, are NOT outlawed by the AETA! They're protected, as they should be.

You can read S3880 ES, as passed by the Senate, at  http://thomas.loc.gov/. S3880 ES.

S3880 ES includes, under definitions:

"(B) does not include any lawful economic disruptin (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;"

and

"e) Rules of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed--

`(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution;

`(2) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference;"

===========
It doesn't get much clearer than that.

don't be fooled - the sentencing guidelines include things that contradict these passages, that can include speech. The language of the bill is also very vague and includes things such as "interferes with" an animal enterprise, and...other problems that I don't have the ability or time to go through and point out. I'm not a lawyer. And you aren't either. I've heard lawyers who have gone through this bill carefully, and have much experience with the way that this will likely be used (including a SHAC attorney) - and express great concern about it. You're looking at one little piece, not the contradictions, not the vague language in other places. You are incorrect to think that it's all so clear and that no one will be sitting in jail hoping that it is eventually found unconstitutional (which it is).

here is a more in-depth analysis so you can see just how clear it all is (sorry, I'm irritated beyond belief with your "it just doesn't get any clearer than that" line - it's like people who don't know what they don't know are the most arrogant of all)!

 http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/aeta-analysis-109th
 http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/s3880-analysis

I think this is horrible, however a few things to think about. (2) a fine under this title or imprisonment not more than 1 year, or both, if the offense does not instill in another the reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death and? (A) the offense results in no economic damage or bodily injury; or (B) the offense results in economic damage that does not exceed $10,000; [emphasis added 1) If one can be jailed for speaking or blocking an entrance. Then the fear of jail time for something more extreme does not have the same effect. And there for why block an entrance when you can burn down the building (I would never do such a thing) 2) If one can be fined or jailed, for NOT instilling fear of bodily injury or death, what is to stop one from INSTILLING that fear. It seems to me that the farther they push the farther people will go. Oh one more thing I wonder if the prison industry wants a bunch of activist on hunger strikes until they are serve healthy vegan meals. haha

I agree. It doesn't get any clearer than that!
AETA is clearly vague and a threat to your first amendment rights!

Call your House of Representatives and make an apointment to meet with your rep. That's what they're paid for. Or if you can't do that, fax them a letter expressing your desire that the bill be canned or delayed for lack of debate.Tell them that you want them to vote NO in November. This is bigger than you can ever imagine. Or worst case scenario, email the staff of your HR rep and tell them to vote NO. You only have a few days left to preserve your constitutional rights. Once Bush signs it (and he will) it will be much more difficult to repeal the law.

VISIT, FAX, CALL AND WRITE your U.S. Reps (not State Reps but U.S. Reps) 202-224-3121 to urge them to oppose HR 4239.