Watching This Could Make YOU a TERRORIST | Criminalizing Animal Activism

Let’s play a round of spot the criminal.
Is it A, this guy, B, one of these people,

or C, these people. If you guessed C, you’re
a caring person with a heart brimming with

compassion. And, you’re legally wrong. ‘Cause
in the real world, you free Willy, you go to jail.

Where do we draw the line when it comes to animal
activism? When are certain actions compassionate

versus criminal. When is saving a life an
act of terrorism versus heroism?

In the United States at least, the legal line
is moving further and further in favor of

criminalizing activism. The Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act, or AETA, was signed into law

on Nov 27th, 2006 by President George W Bush.
This act amended and expanded the Animal Enterprise

Protection Act of 1992.
The Defending Dissent Foundation puts it this

way: The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act criminalizes
a broad range of organizing and protest activity,

and brands it as ‘terrorism’. The law
is intended to muzzle animal rights advocates,

but it’s so broad that it could be used
against virtually anyone who uses the internet

to research or provide information about an
issue, or who organizes a protest or boycott.

Yes, it is that bad! That’s why we call
it the Activism Equals Terrorism Act.

This is particularly true when considering
that the AETA leaves room for conspiracy charges,

which allows for prosecution based not on
your actions alone, but on your connection

to other peoples’ actions, regardless of
participation or even knowledge of those actions.

The past decade has seen a number of prosecutions
under both the AEPA and the AETA. These prosecutions

have been notable in that they have both criminalized
activities that are generally protected under

the First Amendment, such as chanting and
leafleting and they’ve also been used to

enhance charges for direct actions, which
are already criminalized by existing federal

or state statutes.

I had something of my own experience with
this when I faced potential legal repercussions

for a performance art piece I did in which
I was branded with a cattle iron. Because

apparently that hurt other people more than
it hurt me.

Now, what if you don’t steal anything, free
any animals or destroy any property. What

if all you want to do is show what’s happening
behind the closed doors of farm, factories,

and labs? In many places in the US, this is,
or is becoming, a crime as well. Ag-Gag laws

are becoming standard across the country.
Ag-gag is a term used for a variety of anti-whistleblower

laws in the United States that prohibit the
making of undercover videos, photographs and

sound recordings. Kansas was the first state
to enact an ag-gag law, in 1990.

Undercover videos are important for a number
of reasons. They educate the public on what

is really happening to produce our food, fashion,
cosmetics, etc. They also give a voice to

the animals who suffer and die behind closed
doors without a chance for anyone to tell

their story. They help keep companies accountable
for their actions. And, believe it or not,

they help human society. You see, ag-gag bills
are troubling not only for animal activists,

but also people concerned with food safety,
labor issues, free speech, and freedom of

the press. These bills apply equally to journalists,
employees, and activists. By prohibiting any

type of undercover recordings, a farm's own
employees would be prohibited from attempting

to record food safety violations, labor violations,
sexual harassment incidents or other illegal

activity.

Let’s do a quick summary. And if you’re
sensitive to graphic imagery, just listen

to the audio on this, and I’ll tell you
when it’s okay to look again.

So the law protects the mink farmer using
anal electrocution and skinning animals alive.

It protects the vivisectionist performing
cruel and useless experiments on conscious

animals. It protects the farmer cramming a
veal calf into a crate, lopping off appendages

without anesthetic, and blatantly abusing
animals. But what the law does not protect

and, in fact prosecutes is the people trying
to stop all of this.

How logical is this? Criminal. Legally Protected.
Terrorist. Legally Protected. Illegal. Legal.

For those of you turned away, the graphic
part’s over. This whole situation is ass

backwards. The law needs to stop criminalizing
those who are trying to stop cruelty and start

protecting those upon whom this cruelty is
being inflicted. In the end, isn’t that

what legal protection is supposed to do? Protect
those who cannot protect themselves?

So you tell me. Who’s the real criminal?
And if we asked the animals, I’m pretty

sure what their answer would be. Let me know
your thoughts in the comments and give the

video a thumbs up if you liked it. Please
share it around to spread the word and I’ll

see you next time.