"In a rare piece of good news, a federal judge has dismissed the indictments against four animal rights activists who have been charged under the new Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. This law was written to make it a federal crime to interfere in any way with any industry that utilizes animals as products, test subjects or any other capacity.
The faultiness of such a law has been outlined in great detail. Under the most literal reading of the law, simply being vegan could be construed as an act of terrorism since it interferes with companies' ability to sell meat, dairy and eggs. This law is a terrifying joke. It's a stopgap measure to try and stave off the rising tide of consumers aware of the plight of animals in our culture. Animal rights is the biggest moral concern in 2010, and the AETA is a misguided attempt by the animal agriculture industry to paint the animal rights community as a domestic terrorist threat.
How much sillier does it get than to live in a country where the KKK still exists, yet the animal rights community is considered a terrorist threat?"
...The four activists composing what was being informally referred to as the AETA4 were Joseph Buddenberg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope and Adriana Stumpo. They were charged with federal crimes for doing what amounted to constitutionally protected free speech: picketing and distributing fliers regarding cruel vivisection taking place at UC Santa Cruz. Judge Ronald White very likely saw through the obvious legal facade when he said the indictment was too vague and lacked "specificity" in the allegations.
........
http://www.care2.com/causes/animal-welfare/blog/judge-dismisses-charges-against-aeta4/
Comments
I see Care 2 supports s. 510 food safety bill. It contains some elements that could crush small farms doing direct sales. Even though the title sounds good and is sponsored and co-sponsored by Dems. it has Corporate roots and is rather a wolf in sheeps clothing. Some are calling this possibly the worst bill ever written. From what I've heard it is wildlife unfriendly too. A deer or even a frog on farmland is considered hazardous as are trees within so many feet of a crop.
I see Care 2 supports s. 510 food safety bill. It contains some elements that could crush small farms doing direct sales. Even though the title sounds good and is sponsored and co-sponsored by Dems. it has Corporate roots and is rather a wolf in sheeps clothing. Some are calling this possibly the worst bill ever written. From what I've heard it is wildlife unfriendly too. A deer or even a frog on farmland is considered hazardous as are trees within so many feet of a crop.
Thanks for the updates on the bill!
I just had hoped they had not tried to handle such a broad act with such little understandings when it comes to local farming system. I've been to the annual Outlook Forum in the past and have been shocked by how little the USDA folks know about our new approaches. I have to chuckle every time I remember trying to explain to USDA why I was attempting to create a domestic prairie form of livestock raising (now known as MIG or grass fed) instead of just doing a standard feed lot.
Revitalizing the state Land Grants original local mission could not only be beneficial at this time at the local level but could also be helpful to educate USDA and FDA before they start setting controls and acceptable practices.
I have hoped that the successes of the new small farming and food movement might be are best chance at beneficial corporate reforms.
I do appreciate that many of the Animal Rights groups no longer lump all livestock raising together which was so painful for so many years when trying to do the right thing.