An Analysis Of The Communication Efforts Made By Law Abiding Animal Advocacy Groups About The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

ABSTRACT: The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) was signed by President George W. Bush on November 27, 2006 amid claims that the language of the bill featured oversights that could threaten certain civil liberties for those involved specifically with animal advocacy. Seventeen telephone interviews were conducted with representatives of law-abiding animal advocacy groups in order to analyze the communication efforts that were made by these groups regarding AETA. Instead of participating in a telephone interview, one organizational representative provided written answers to a list of sample questions. The responses of the 18 participants revealed that, generally speaking, law-abiding animal advocacy groups' communication efforts about AETA were not enacted until AETA was close to being passed in both houses of Congress and that the passing of the bill has not hindered their campaign efforts up to the point of this study. This study reveals implications for those involved in the study or practice of law, public relations, or activism.

In 2006 the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) was passed with the intention to equip law enforcement agencies with the tools to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals who commit "animal enterprise terror." But, as many have come to realize, this act does not concretely define what is meant by that phrase, leading to the interpretation that anyone interfering with a company's ability to make a profit from the exploitation of animals can be considered a terrorist. In this unprecedented and timely collection, some of the most influential voices in the world of law and animal rights examine the legalities of the AETA, highlight its repressive nature and the collusion between private interests and political legislation, and provide theoretical frameworks for understanding a variety of related issues. In a series of interviews, the book also gives animal advocates who have been convicted or directly affected by the AETA, including members of the AETA 4 and SHAC 7, an opportunity to speak for themselves. Ultimately, these writers show that the AETA is less about fighting terrorism and more about safeguarding corporate profit, and that it should be analyzed and resisted by everyone who believes in a better world. Featuring: Piers Beirne, Sarahjane Blum, Heidi Boghosian, Walter Bond, Joseph Buddenberg, Sarat Colling, Kimberly E. McCoy, Jason Del Gandio, Scott DeMuth, Carol L. Glasser, Jennifer D. Grubbs, Josh Harper, Stephanie Jenkins, Jay Johnson, Eric Jonas, Michael Loadenthal, Dara Lovitz, Lillian M. McCartin, Anthony J. Nocella II, David Naguib Pellow, Will Potter, Dylan Powell, Ryan Shapiro, Wesley Shirley, John Sorenson, Vasile Stanescu, Brad J. Thomson, and Aaron Zellhoefer

In Muzzling the Movement, lawyer Dara Lovitz presents an in-depth and tightly argued analysis of the case of the SHAC-7. She reveals the history behind the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, examines the tendentious and speculative government case against the SHAC activists, and in so doing shows how the U.S. government has deeply compromised the freedom of speech and protest enshrined in the Constitution. The ability to protest peacefully and to voice unpopular opinions without being arrested and imprisoned arbitrarily are cornerstones of the U.S. Constitution, and are the reasons why, in spite of the many limitations imposed upon sectors of its society over the centuries, the dominant order has been forced to change to allow people of color, women, and others to take their place in society. Animals raised for their flesh or body products, however, remain without even the most basic natural rights: to move around, to associate with their conspecifics, to breathe clean air, and to nest or wallow or graze. They have no choice but to rely, as do all non-human animals, on human beings to speak up for them and articulate those basic rights, as well as to challenge those who are either indifferent to, or actively complicit in harming, their welfare. Since the passage of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) in 2006, however, the ability to document abuses, draw attention to the horrors, and raise public awareness about the suffering of animals in factory farms or scientific laboratories has been substantially curtailed. Muzzling the Movement is an in-depth and tightly argued analysis of the case of the SHAC-7, the organization whose supposed activities ultimately led to the passage of the AETA. Lawyer Dara Lovitz reveals the history behind the AETA, examines the tendentious and speculative government case against the SHAC activists, and in so doing shows how the U.S. government has deeply compromised the freedom of speech and protest enshrined in the Constitution.

In 2006 the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) was passed with the intention to equip law enforcement agencies with the tools to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals who commit "animal enterprise terror." But, as many have come to realize, this act does not concretely define what is meant by that phrase, leading to the interpretation that anyone interfering with a company's ability to make a profit from the exploitation of animals can be considered a terrorist. In this unprecedented and timely collection, some of the most influential voices in the world of law and animal rights examine the legalities of the AETA, highlight its repressive nature and the collusion between private interests and political legislation, and provide theoretical frameworks for understanding a variety of related issues. In a series of interviews, the book also gives animal advocates who have been convicted or directly affected by the AETA, including members of the AETA 4 and SHAC 7, an opportunity to speak for themselves. Ultimately, these writers show that the AETA is less about fighting terrorism and more about safeguarding corporate profit, and that it should be analyzed and resisted by everyone who believes in a better world. Featuring: Piers Beirne, Sarahjane Blum, Heidi Boghosian, Walter Bond, Joseph Buddenberg, Sarat Colling, Kimberly E. McCoy, Jason Del Gandio, Scott DeMuth, Carol L. Glasser, Jennifer D. Grubbs, Josh Harper, Stephanie Jenkins, Jay Johnson, Eric Jonas, Michael Loadenthal, Dara Lovitz, Lillian M. McCartin, Anthony J. Nocella II, David Naguib Pellow, Will Potter, Dylan Powell, Ryan Shapiro, Wesley Shirley, John Sorenson, Vasile Stanescu, Brad J. Thomson, and Aaron Zellhoefer

Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act : hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, second session, on H.R. 4239, May 23, 2006.

Abstract: "Supporters of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (2006) label as "terrorists" mainstream animal welfare corporations such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA). Animal advocates fear that conventional forms of protest, such as boycotts and street demonstrations, are being redefined within such legislation as potential "acts of terror". Meanwhile, in Ireland, peaceful grassroots animal rights campaigners have begun to be arrested and jailed for standing outside fur shops with an information table. Is Ireland next in line in terms of the apparent global criminalisation of animal advocacy?" [author's abstract]

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

For much of our history, legal scholars focused predominantly on the law’s implications for human beings, while ignoring how the law influences animal welfare. Since the 1970s, however, there has been a steep increase in animal advocates’ use of the courts. Animal law has blossomed into a vibrant academic discipline, with a rich literature that examines how the law affects animal welfare and the ability of humans to advocate on behalf of nonhuman animals. But most animal law literature tends to be doctrinally-based or normative. There has been little empirical study of the outcomes of animal law cases and there has been very little attention paid to the political influences of these outcomes. This book fills the gap in animal law literature. This is the first empirically-based analysis of animal law that emphasizes the political forces that shape animal law outcomes.