{"id":1933,"date":"2013-03-28T11:17:55","date_gmt":"2013-03-28T18:17:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cldc.org\/?p=1933"},"modified":"2026-10-26T12:53:19","modified_gmt":"2026-10-26T19:53:19","slug":"court-dismisses-animal-enterprise-terrorist-act-lawsuit-heres-how-that-affects-you","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cldc.org\/es\/court-dismisses-animal-enterprise-terrorist-act-lawsuit-heres-how-that-affects-you\/","title":{"rendered":"Tribunal Desestima Demanda por Ley de Terrorismo contra Empresas de Animales: C\u00f3mo te afecta"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

<\/h1>\n

por Will Potter el 27 de marzo de 2013<\/abbr><\/p>\n

en Legislaci\u00f3n contra el terrorismo<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

A U.S. district court has dismissed a lawsuit by animal rights activists that argued a federal law has put them at risk of being labeled \u201cterrorists.\u201d<\/p>\n

Cinco activistas por los derechos de los animales de larga data presentaron la demanda contra la Ley de Terrorismo de Empresas Animales<\/a>, which is a law passed in 2006 at the request of groups like the National Cattlemen\u2019s Beef Association, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline.<\/p>\n

The activists cited vague and overly broad language throughout the law wrapping up protest activity that causes a \u201closs of profits,\u201d along with its attempted use against activists for protesting and chanting. All of this, combined with the \u201ceco-terrorist\u201d public relations campaigns of industry groups and the harassment of law enforcement, has had a chilling effect on animal rights activists. This was the foundation of the lawsuit brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights: the AETA has not been used against the plaintiffs, but it has made them afraid to speak up.<\/p>\n

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts took a very narrow reading of the AETA, and dismissed the lawsuit. But that\u2019s not necessarily a bad thing. Here\u2019s why:<\/p>\n

El Bien<\/h3>\n

In hopes of getting the case thrown out, the government argued that the activists didn\u2019t have legal standing to bring the suit in the first place. In order to make this argument, the government had to argue that the activists are not personalmente<\/em> at risk under the law. The judge agreed:<\/p>\n

\u201cPlaintiffs have not alleged an intention to engage in any activity prohibited by the AETA. The conduct they seek to participate in \u2014 lawful and peaceful advocacy \u2014 is very different: documenting factory conditions with permission, organizing lawful public protests and letterwriting campaigns, speaking at public events, and disseminating literature and other educational materials. None of Plaintiffs\u2019 proposed activities fall within the statutory purview of intentionally damaging or causing loss of real or personal property or intentionally placing a person in reasonable fear of death or serious injury.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In other words, the Justice Department and District Court are both making clear that the AETA can\u2019t be used against the types of activism listed above. The government is publicly limiting its official interpretation of the law, and rebuking what some industry groups and lobbyists have sought. That\u2019s good news.<\/p>\n

\n

El mal<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n

Those statements about the law\u2019s scope are positive developments, but they are not binding in any way. They are ammunition to be used in the defense of activists in court, and they may even be a deterrent to prosecutors and industry, but they\u2019re not safeguards.<\/p>\n

More troubling, though, is that Judge Tauro\u2019s ruling completely sidesteps the core First Amendment arguments at issue in this case by noting that these activists aren\u2019t breaking the law. It relies on the idea of \u201clawful\u201d conduct as a crutch: if activists are behaving lawfully, the reasoning goes, they have no reason to fear prosecution, and thus no right to challenge the law in court.<\/p>\n

As the government argued:<\/p>\n

\u201cNone of this activity involves the deliberate damaging of personal property or other unlawful or violent actions such as trespass, theft, or harassment \u2014 the type of conduct targeted by the statute.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

La declaraci\u00f3n anterior es una victoria en el sentido de que limita el alcance de la ley, pero no va lo suficientemente lejos.<\/p>\n

For example, note that \u201ctrespass\u201d is included alongside \u201cviolent actions.\u201d As I argued in my Congressional testimony \u2014 and as supporters of the law conceded \u2014 this could be used against activists who non-violently break the law through civil disobedience. And as FBI documents revealed, the bureau has considered prosecuting undercover investigators as \u201cterrorists\u201d because they \u201ctrespassed\u201d and caused a loss of profits.<\/p>\n

In addition, \u201ctheft\u201d would include activists who rescue animals from horrific cruelty and neglect. Removing a suffering animal from a factory farm without permission may not be legal<\/em>, pero ciertamente no deber\u00eda ser el dominio de la legislaci\u00f3n antiterrorista.<\/p>\n

On top of all this is a much bigger concern. Across the country, states are considering \u201cag-gag\u201d bills that criminalize undercover investigators, whistleblowers, and even journalists. Those bills became law in three states last year. Some of the bills this year are so broad that they criminalize anyone who takes photographs or video of factory farms, or who \u201cpossesses\u201d or \u201cdistributes\u201d that footage. The court\u2019s promises about \u201clawful\u201d activity not being at risk are meaningless as corporations are seeking to radically redefine the law.<\/p>\n

El Futuro<\/h3>\n

Given the concerns I raised above, and given the \u201cag-gag\u201d bills pending across the country, it may come as a surprise that I think this lawsuit has been a victory.<\/p>\n

El fallo en s\u00ed ser\u00e1 apelado, seg\u00fan los activistas y el Centro por los Derechos Constitucionales. Esa lucha legal contin\u00faa. Este despido es un rev\u00e9s, pero no es inesperado.<\/p>\n

Mientras tanto, el gobierno ha disipado oficialmente algunos de los peores escenarios que algunos abogados y activistas hab\u00edan imaginado. Si los activistas terminan en los tribunales, esto ser\u00e1 invaluable.<\/p>\n

Lo m\u00e1s importante es que esta demanda refleja un cambio radical dentro del movimiento por los derechos de los animales. Durante a\u00f1os, algunos activistas de animales se han comportado como si ignorar estos ataques continuos por parte de corporaciones y gobiernos hiciera que desaparecieran. Una actitud machista y la falta de visi\u00f3n crearon un clima en el que el simple hecho de reconocer la creciente represi\u00f3n era una se\u00f1al de debilidad; la respuesta al miedo era simplemente pretender que el miedo no existe.<\/p>\n

This lawsuit is about stripping the AETA of that fear. These activists are shining a public spotlight on corporate tactics that for decades have thrived in the dark. As we have seen with the growing chorus of opposition to \u201cag-gag\u201d bills, most people are outraged that anti-terrorism resources are being used to target animal advocates. The problem is that the general public is completely unaware it is happening. Sunlight is this industry\u2019s worst enemy, both in terms of exposing factory farms and exposing corporate attempts to label activists as \u201cterrorists.\u201d<\/p>\n

Al presentarse y arrojar luz sobre esta legislaci\u00f3n en los tribunales, los activistas enfrentan su miedo, y a su oposici\u00f3n, de frente.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Will Potter on March 27, 2013 in Terrorism Legislation A U.S. district court has dismissed a lawsuit by animal rights activists that argued a federal law has put them at risk of being labeled \u201cterrorists.\u201d Five longtime animal rights activists filed the lawsuit against the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which is a law passed […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[27,45,9,54,38],"class_list":["post-1933","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog","tag-activist-defense","tag-activist-rights","tag-aeta","tag-government-repression","tag-green-scare"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cldc.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1933","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cldc.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cldc.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cldc.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cldc.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1933"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/cldc.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1933\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19258,"href":"https:\/\/cldc.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1933\/revisions\/19258"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cldc.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1933"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cldc.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1933"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cldc.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1933"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}