Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) is a United States federal law introduced by Republican Thomas Petri of Wisconsin. The final version of the bill, recently passed by both the Senate and House, was known as S. 3880. Earlier versions of the bill were known as S. 1926 and H.R. 4239. [1] The bill is described by the author as being intended to "provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror." [2]
The intended targets are animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists who engage in unlawful acts of intimidation and violence against people engaged in lawful research and other activities involving animals. The proposed bill specifically exempts "lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise" from legal penalties.
The House passed the bill under a suspension of the rules, which meant that only six Representatives were present to vote on it. Among the six, the only opposition was from Representative Dennis Kucinich, who claimed that the bill was "written in such a way as to have a chilling effect on the exercise of peoples' first amendment rights." [citation needed]
The bill was passed by the Senate in September 2006 and was approved by the House of Representatives in November 2006. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 27, 2006.
[edit] Reaction
The ACLU, though not opposing the bill, sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, requesting "minor changes" to the bill to address concerns that "legitimate expressive activity" which economically damages or inhibits the business of an animal enterprise, could be classified as terrorist activity. The ACLU also expressed concern that the bill could be used against those interrupting illegal animal enterprises, such as animal fighting. [3]
The bill was supported by the Animal Enterprise Protection Coalition, an industry group including GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche and Wyeth among its members, leading the the activist group Win Animal Rights to suggest it was "bought and paid for, by the pharmaceutical industry" [4]
Animal rights activists have criticized the bill on the grounds that it does not provide explicit protection for whistleblowing and undercover investigations, [citation needed] and complained they have been unfairly singled out, Alliance for Animals director Lori Nitzel suggested "it heavily criminalizes civil disobedience, and just for animal rights activists." [5] However, Jerry Vlasak, spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, suggested the bill would have little impact on the movement because underground activists "don't really care about those laws" and law enforcement agencies had already "gone after" effective above-ground activists. [6]
The American Kennel Club endorsed the bill, because it contains "explicit language" which protects the right of protestors to engage in "peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration." [7] Frankie Trull, president of the National Association for Biomedical Research described as "just silly" fears that peaceful protest would be criminalized by the bill, believing it would only apply when protestors "harass someone to the extent that they fear for their safety." [8]
