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.

1970年，国会颁布了《敲诈勒索影响和腐败组织法》（RICO），18 U.S.C. § 1961，表面上是为了遏制黑手党的犯罪活动。自RICO颁布以来的四十多年里，该法的适用范围已远远超出了高利贷者和“教父”的活动，并蔓延到了受宪法保护的抗议活动。随着时间的推移，联邦法院逐渐削弱了RICO的初衷——即阻止黑手党的犯罪活动。取而代之的是，法院对RICO的解释一贯地忽视了这一初衷，并允许该法被用作压制社会变革倡导者的一种方式。善待动物组织（PETA）、美国防止虐待动物协会（ASPCA）、美国人道协会（HSUS）以及许多其他动物福利组织都曾是RICO诉讼的受害者。.

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.

1964年，在美国最高法院的《纽约时报诉沙利文案》（New York Times v. Sullivan）中，最高法院裁定，第一修正案保护就公共事务发表诽谤性言论的个人，只要此类言论并非出于恶意或鲁莽忽视真相。《法院“在坚决奉行公开辩论应不受拘束、充满活力和广泛开放的原则的深刻国家承诺的背景下”作出了这一裁决。(1) 这一裁决为涉及公共事务的诽谤案件中提出的更高举证责任设定了先例。(2)