Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
Encyclopedia
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) is a United States federal law that prohibits any person from engaging in certain conduct "for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise." The statute covers any act that either "damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property" or "places a person in reasonable fear" of injury. The law contains a savings clause that indicates it should not be construed to "prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution." However, by its own terms, the statute criminalizes acts such as "intimidation." And prosecutions under AETA require using evidence of otherwise lawful free speech in order to demonstrate a "course of conduct" as proof of purpose or possible conspiracy.
The law amends the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 and gives the U.S. Department of Justice greater authority to target animal rights activists. The AETA does so by broadening the definition of "animal enterprise" to include academic and commercial enterprises that use or sell animals or animal products. It also increases the existing penalties, includes penalties based on the amount of economic damage caused, and allows animal enterprises to seek restitution.
The law was originally introduced in the 109th Congress
by Thomas Petri (R-WI) and Senators Dianne Feinstein
(D-CA) and James Inhofe (R-OK). The final version of the bill, S. 3880., was passed in the United States Senate
on September 29, 2006, by unanimous consent, a Senate procedure that is used to expedite the passage of non-controversial bills without an actual vote. On November 13, 2006, the House passed the bill under suspension of the rules
, a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills without voting. The lone dissenting statement was made by Representative Dennis Kucinich
, who said that the bill was "written in such a way as to have a chilling effect on the exercise of the constitutional rights of protest." However, Rep. Kucinich immediately left the floor in protest after his statement rather than formally objecting to the bill under House legislative procedural rules, thereby allowing the bill to pass. The bill was signed by President George W. Bush on November 27, 2006. Earlier versions of the bill were known as S. 1926 and H.R. 4239. The bill is described by the author as being intended to "provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror."
Animal welfare and civil liberties groups, however, largely opposed the passage of the legislation. Camille Hankins, a representative of Win Animal Rights, asserted that the legislation infringed upon the First Amendment
rights of free speech and assembly: "It's overly broad, overly vague and restricts freedom of speech and freedom of assembly." She added: "I think this legislation was bought and paid for, by the pharmaceutical industry primarily." However, Jerry Vlasak, spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, suggested the bill would have little impact on the movement because underground activists "don't really care about those laws" and law enforcement agencies had already "gone after" effective above-ground activists. The American Kennel Club
, a dog breeding organization, endorsed the bill, because it contains "explicit language" which protects the right of protesters to engage in "peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration."
The American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) did not oppose the bill, but expressed concerns that "minor changes [were] necessary to make the bill less likely to chill or threaten freedom of speech." The ACLU requested that the bill be amended to define what was meant by "real or personal property," to narrow the definition of "animal enterprise," and to substantially reduce penalties for conspiracy convictions under the statute. The particular changes proposed by the ACLU are not present in the final version of the AETA.
(SHAC), an activist group that worked to close animal testing laboratories. Six members of the group were charged and put on trial for a "multi-faceted" and decentralized grassroots activist campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences
. While there was no proof that the actual defendants committed or had any knowledge of the overwhelming majority of the illegal acts at issue, they were convicted under the AETA’s conspiracy provisions. On appeal, the Third Circuit upheld the convictions because the defendants’ membership in the group, participation in political protests, as well as unrelated speeches, interviews, publications, and internet postings constituted "sufficient circumstantial evidence" for a jury to infer a conspiracy. One defendant was convicted despite doing nothing more than providing "technical assistance" for the group’s website because the website was then used by others to organize unlawful acts. At least one of the defendants was placed in an exceptionally restrictive Communication Management Unit
, reserved for inmates the government considers terrorist threats.
In 2009, four individuals were indicted under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for peacefully protesting on public property outside the homes of professors conducting research involving animal testing. While the charges were eventually dismissed, the defendants were placed under house arrest for almost a year. The AETA effectively granted law enforcement officers the authority to obstruct activism and free expression merely by deciding to pursue the criminal investigation.
The law amends the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 and gives the U.S. Department of Justice greater authority to target animal rights activists. The AETA does so by broadening the definition of "animal enterprise" to include academic and commercial enterprises that use or sell animals or animal products. It also increases the existing penalties, includes penalties based on the amount of economic damage caused, and allows animal enterprises to seek restitution.
The law was originally introduced in the 109th Congress
109th United States Congress
The One Hundred Ninth United States Congress was the legislative branch of the United States, composed of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, from January 3, 2005 to January 3, 2007, during the fifth and sixth years of George W. Bush's presidency. House members...
by Thomas Petri (R-WI) and Senators Dianne Feinstein
Dianne Feinstein
Dianne Goldman Berman Feinstein is the senior U.S. Senator from California. A member of the Democratic Party, she has served in the Senate since 1992. She also served as 38th Mayor of San Francisco from 1978 to 1988....
(D-CA) and James Inhofe (R-OK). The final version of the bill, S. 3880., was passed in the United States Senate
United States Senate
The United States Senate is the upper house of the bicameral legislature of the United States, and together with the United States House of Representatives comprises the United States Congress. The composition and powers of the Senate are established in Article One of the U.S. Constitution. Each...
on September 29, 2006, by unanimous consent, a Senate procedure that is used to expedite the passage of non-controversial bills without an actual vote. On November 13, 2006, the House passed the bill under suspension of the rules
Suspension of the rules
Suspension of the rules in the United States Congress is the specific set of procedures within the United States Congress that allows for the general parliamentary procedure notion of how and when to suspend the rules.-Overview:...
, a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills without voting. The lone dissenting statement was made by Representative Dennis Kucinich
Dennis Kucinich
Dennis John Kucinich is the U.S. Representative for , serving since 1997. He was furthermore a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections....
, who said that the bill was "written in such a way as to have a chilling effect on the exercise of the constitutional rights of protest." However, Rep. Kucinich immediately left the floor in protest after his statement rather than formally objecting to the bill under House legislative procedural rules, thereby allowing the bill to pass. The bill was signed by President George W. Bush on November 27, 2006. Earlier versions of the bill were known as S. 1926 and H.R. 4239. The bill is described by the author as being intended to "provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror."
Reaction
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was overwhelmingly embraced by the pharmaceutical industry. The National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR) lauded the passage of the bill stating, "Today, the AETA provides greater protection for the biomedical research community and their families against intimidation and harassment, and addresses for the first time in federal law, campaigns of secondary and tertiary targeting that cause economic damage to research enterprises."Animal welfare and civil liberties groups, however, largely opposed the passage of the legislation. Camille Hankins, a representative of Win Animal Rights, asserted that the legislation infringed upon the First Amendment
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
rights of free speech and assembly: "It's overly broad, overly vague and restricts freedom of speech and freedom of assembly." She added: "I think this legislation was bought and paid for, by the pharmaceutical industry primarily." However, Jerry Vlasak, spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, suggested the bill would have little impact on the movement because underground activists "don't really care about those laws" and law enforcement agencies had already "gone after" effective above-ground activists. The American Kennel Club
American Kennel Club
The American Kennel Club is a registry of purebred dog pedigrees in the United States. Beyond maintaining its pedigree registry, this kennel club also promotes and sanctions events for purebred dogs, including the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, an annual event which predates the official...
, a dog breeding organization, endorsed the bill, because it contains "explicit language" which protects the right of protesters to engage in "peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration."
The American Civil Liberties Union
American Civil Liberties Union
The American Civil Liberties Union is a U.S. non-profit organization whose stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." It works through litigation, legislation, and...
(ACLU) did not oppose the bill, but expressed concerns that "minor changes [were] necessary to make the bill less likely to chill or threaten freedom of speech." The ACLU requested that the bill be amended to define what was meant by "real or personal property," to narrow the definition of "animal enterprise," and to substantially reduce penalties for conspiracy convictions under the statute. The particular changes proposed by the ACLU are not present in the final version of the AETA.
Notable Criminal Prosecutions
The bill was passed in response to the then-ongoing prosecution of members of Stop Huntingdon Animal CrueltyStop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty
Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty is an international animal rights campaign to close down Huntingdon Life Sciences , Europe's largest contract animal-testing laboratory. HLS tests medical and non-medical substances on around 75,000 animals every year, from rats to primates...
(SHAC), an activist group that worked to close animal testing laboratories. Six members of the group were charged and put on trial for a "multi-faceted" and decentralized grassroots activist campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences
Huntingdon Life Sciences
Huntingdon Life Sciences is a contract animal-testing company founded in 1952 in England, with facilities in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire; Eye, Suffolk; New Jersey in the U.S., and Japan...
. While there was no proof that the actual defendants committed or had any knowledge of the overwhelming majority of the illegal acts at issue, they were convicted under the AETA’s conspiracy provisions. On appeal, the Third Circuit upheld the convictions because the defendants’ membership in the group, participation in political protests, as well as unrelated speeches, interviews, publications, and internet postings constituted "sufficient circumstantial evidence" for a jury to infer a conspiracy. One defendant was convicted despite doing nothing more than providing "technical assistance" for the group’s website because the website was then used by others to organize unlawful acts. At least one of the defendants was placed in an exceptionally restrictive Communication Management Unit
Communication Management Unit
Communication Management Unit is a recent designation for a self-contained group within a facility in the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons that severely restricts, manages and monitors all outside communication of inmates in the unit.-Origins:As part of the Bush Administration's War on...
, reserved for inmates the government considers terrorist threats.
In 2009, four individuals were indicted under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for peacefully protesting on public property outside the homes of professors conducting research involving animal testing. While the charges were eventually dismissed, the defendants were placed under house arrest for almost a year. The AETA effectively granted law enforcement officers the authority to obstruct activism and free expression merely by deciding to pursue the criminal investigation.
External links
- Text of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
- Earlier House version of the bill (H.R. 4239)
- Transcript of the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
- ACLU Letter to Congress Opposing the AETA
- ACLU Letter to James Sensenbrenner Supporting an Amended AETA
- Coalition to Abolish the AETA
- U.S. terror hunt targets animal activists (Toronto Star)
- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Action Alert Regarding the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
- American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Action Alert Regarding the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
- The Casualties of Green Scare (CounterPunch)
- House Passes Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act With Little Discussion or Dissent