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.

Em 1970, o Congresso promulgou a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, ostensivamente para conter as atividades criminosas da máfia. Nos quarenta anos desde que a RICO foi promulgada, a aplicação da lei se estendeu muito além das atividades de agiotagem e do “Don”, e até atividades de protesto protegidas pela Constituição. Com o tempo, os tribunais federais gradualmente tornaram a intenção original da RICO — ou seja, parar as atividades criminosas da máfia — cada vez menos significativa. Em vez disso, os tribunais emitiram interpretações da RICO que consistentemente ignoram essa intenção e permitem que a lei seja usada como uma forma de silenciar defensores da mudança social. Organizações de bem-estar animal como a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), a American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), a Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), bem como muitas outras, têm sido vítimas de processos judiciais sob a RICO.

MYTH: Senators Feinstein and Inhofe claim on their website that “AETA gives law enforcement the tools they need to adequately combat radical animal rights extremists who commit violent acts against innocent people because they work with animals. This is terrorism and cannot be tolerated.

Em 1964, no caso New York Times v. Sullivan, a Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos decidiu que a Primeira Emenda protege indivíduos que fazem declarações difamatórias relacionadas a assuntos de interesse público, desde que tais declarações não sejam feitas com malícia real ou com descaso irresponsável pela verdade. A Corte chegou a essa decisão “no contexto de um profundo compromisso nacional com o princípio de que o debate sobre questões públicas deve ser irrestrito, robusto e amplamente aberto”. (1) Sua decisão estabeleceu o precedente para um ônus da prova mais elevado em casos de difamação que envolvam assuntos de interesse público. (2)