Posted on 10/04/2006 8:15:22 AM PDT by doc30
Here is a mass e-mailing I got from the ASPCA with regards to this bill. It's passed the Senate, now it's the House's turn. The link above goes to the text of the bill. My comments are after that.
H.R. 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), is a bill that could make it a crime punishable by imprisonment to cause any business classified as an "animal enterprise" to suffer a loss of profit—even if the company's financial decline is the result of legal activities, such as peaceful protests, consumer boycotts or media campaigns. The term “animal enterprise” would include manufacturers, distributors and sellers of animals or animal products, research facilities, pet stores, breeders, zoos, rodeos, circuses, and animal shelters and the like.
While the ASPCA strongly opposes acts of violence, including vandalism, property damage and trespass, this bill threatens to criminalize as “terrorism” otherwise lawful, constitutionally protected acts often utilized by citizens and organizations to effect change. Lawful and peaceful protests that, for example, urge a consumer boycott of a company that does not use humane procedures, could be the target of this provision if the activity resulted in economic damage to the company.
The bill would also make it illegal to expose cruel conditions at facilities such as puppy mills and research labs, if exposure of such conditions—even if done lawfully—would result in economic damage to the animal enterprise. There is no exemption in the bill to exclude “economic damage” that results from the disclosure of information about a company’s treatment of animals, which is disclosed through public information.
The AETA has already been passed in the Senate, and a vote in the House is expected very soon. It is critical that you contact your representative immediately to show your opposition to H.R. 4239 and urge him or her to protect our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech by opposing H.R. 4239.
Now my concern has to do with legitimate cases of cruelty on the part of businesses dealing with animals. Things like puppy mills and such. To the more learned political people here, does this bill curtail free speech issues in such regards? If a business loses income because of publicized boycotts or word of mouth campaigning, should poeple go to jail over it? If cruelty to animals is reported and a business loses income, should the investigator go to jail or get fined? I have mixed feelings on this one.
ping
Sounds ridiculous, unless I am misreading something. Government cannot "guarantee" anybody's profits. What it could do, I suppose, is declare hostile acts against these businesses to be actionable torts -- but what acts could there be that aren't already either constitutionally protected or prohibited by law?
They worry more about animals than people.
Text of bill is here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4239
This is a total straw argument... there are already federal laws and laws in all 50 states addressing the concerns that the ASPCA has listed here.
The sad truth is that the ASPCA is way more sympathetic to Peta and the ALF than they would like you to know about.
This is the equivalent of the Democrats bleating "Oh won't someone think of the CHILDREN!?!?!" when they are against something. "The puppies! Wont you please think of the puppies?!?!?!"
Total. Crap.
There needs to be tpotection for people exposing puppy mills. First of all, don't ever but a pet from a pet store. That's where they get them.
We went into a pet shop one day and asked the man behind the counter, probably the owner, if they had a Scottish Terrier puppy. The man went into the back and came out with one in his hand. He dropped it on the floor from a standing height, in front of us.
These kinds of people need to be gotten out of this business. To them the "pets" are only a commodity. They don't even watch out for the commodity. If he were a crystal dealer he wouldn't come out of the back room and drop the glass on the floor.
My sentiments are against this legislation.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
If there are actually harmful parts of this bill. 1st amdt-wise, if it passes the courts will take care of it.
Like they did with Campaign Finance Reform?
I agree with you on that point 100%. Trashing labs and threatening lab workers is just plain nuts and people who do are just a step away from harming people directly. What I don't like is the economic damage section of the bill. If someone legally protests against a business and its profits drop as a result, will this law apply?
Recently, I learned that the AKC has decided to help PetLand stores register their puppy mill puppies. It seems the AKC has been losing revenue from a decrease in registrations so they hope to get more $$ from the puppy mills now. And now those puppy mill puppies will help further degrade dog breeding in the U.S.
"AKC has decided to help PetLand stores register their puppy mill puppies."
That's terrible news. If anyone wants a purebred it's soooo easy to get online or ask around, like at the vet's, and find the breeder with the desired dog.
PetSmart (SE Michigan) sells rescued dogs, pure- and crossbreed, in its stores. My kind of store!
It's possible to be profitable and still be kind to animals. There's no excuse for cruelty or neglect.
I know what you mean but the courts have been generally friendly to the 1st Amdt while they had this theory that speech you pay for isn't covered by the 1st.That one is truly worrisome but I don't see why it can't be stretched a tiny bit to cover books, newspapers, etc at any time and on any subject seeing that political speech and press is specifically what the 1st was to cover.
You have been punked by the ASPCA. In pertinent excerpt, here is the exact language that defines an offense under the legislation:
(a) OFFENSE.--Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce: (1) for the purpose of damaging or disrupting an animal enterprise; and (2) in connection with such purpose (A) intentionally damages, disrupts, or causes the loss of any property (including animals or records) used by the animal enterprise, or any property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise; (B) intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or (C) conspires or attempts to do so; shall be punished as provided for in subsection (b).
* * * * * * * *
Note also that:
(4) the term `economic disruption'--
(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;
In sum, free speech is protected, but intentional property damage and injury to persons are made illegal. The ASPCA, which is sympathetic with the ALF and other such extremist groups and running cover for them, is trying to con you and the public at large.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.