Under AETA it is no longer just the radical underground activists that are targeted for harming the corporate agenda, but also the law—abiding, above—ground activists. AETA is so broad and vague that ordinary citizens may not know that they are acting outside the vast boundaries of this new law. Under AETA, it doesn’t take much to be labeled an “animal enterprise terrorist. ” Techniques that have been used for years in various social movements are now acts of terrorism if they cause profit loss, including increased security costs, to an animal exploitation business. Those who peacefully protest or engage in undercover investigations can be deemed a terrorist precisely because these actions are purposefully enacted to cause economic loss to a business so that it can no longer engage in the exploitation of animals.

The FBI claims that the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) are the number one domestic terrorism threat, stating that “from January 1990 to June 2004, animal and environmental rights extremists have claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incidents, resulting in millions of dollars in damage and monetary loss.”The government cites no human loss or injury because there has never been any. In fact, the ALF credo states that “it is a nonviolent campaign” in which activists take “all precautions not to harm any animal (human or otherwise).” Conversely, FBI statistics also show that there were more than 7,400 hate crimes motivated by race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation in 2003 alone and 450 environmental crimes by industries violating clean air and water laws and inappropriate transportation and disposing of hazardous waste. Since 1977, there have been 13,000 incidents against abortion clinics and doctors, including 7 murders. Between 1991 and 2001 there were 2,100 acts of violence against unions including bombings, shootings, and near fatal injuries. So why, then, is it the animal rights activists who are the number one domestic terrorist threat? Why hasn’t the FBI focused their attention on other groups such as white supremacists or anti—abortionists who have and will continue to take human lives and pose an actual threat to the American public?

AETA is a redundant and unnecessary law. For one, there are already many federal and state laws that cover the Animal Liberation Front’s tactics. Trespassing, vandalism, burglary, menacing, harassment, graffiti, disorderly conduct, and arson are all crimes. The ALF knows that their actions are illegal, but they are willing to put their freedom at risk in order to “save as many animals as possible and directly disrupt the practice of animal abuse” in the short-term and “to end all animal suffering by forcing animal abuse companies out of business” in the long term. Existing laws that apply to all citizens are sufficient to penalize their actions. There is no need for an additional law that applies only to those acting in the name of animal rights.

Nel 1970, il Congresso ha promulgato il Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, apparentemente per arginare le attività criminali della mafia. Nei quarant'anni trascorsi dall'entrata in vigore del RICO, l'applicazione della legge si è estesa ben oltre le attività degli strozzini e dei “Don”, fino ad includere attività di protesta protette dalla Costituzione. Nel tempo, i tribunali federali hanno gradualmente reso meno significativa l'intenzione originale del RICO — ovvero fermare le attività criminali della mafia. Invece, i tribunali hanno emesso interpretazioni del RICO che ignorano costantemente questa intenzione e permettono che la legge venga utilizzata come un modo per mettere a tacere gli attivisti per il cambiamento sociale. Organizzazioni per il benessere degli animali come People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), l'American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), la Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), così come molte altre, sono state vittime di procedimenti legali ai sensi del RICO.

MITO: I senatori Feinstein e Inhofe affermano sul loro sito web che “l'AETA fornisce alle forze dell'ordine gli strumenti necessari per combattere adeguatamente gli estremisti radicali dei diritti degli animali che commettono atti violenti contro persone innocenti perché lavorano con gli animali. Questo è terrorismo e non può essere tollerato.".

Nel 1964, nella sentenza New York Times v. Sullivan, la Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti stabilì che il Primo Emendamento protegge gli individui che fanno affermazioni diffamatorie relative a questioni di interesse pubblico, purché tali affermazioni non siano fatte con malizia effettiva o con spericolata noncuranza della verità. La Corte giunse a questa decisione “nel contesto di un profondo impegno nazionale per il principio che il dibattito su questioni di interesse pubblico dovrebbe essere illimitato, robusto e aperto”. (1) La loro decisione stabilì il precedente per un onere della prova più elevato nei casi di diffamazione che coinvolgono questioni di interesse pubblico. (2)