Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. appeals court upholds convictions of animal-rights activists charged under terrorism statute
LA Times ^ | 10/15/09 | AP

Posted on 10/15/2009 7:22:06 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

In a split decision, a U.S. appeals court upheld the convictions of animal-rights activists charged under a terrorism statute with using their Web site to incite threats and vandalism against a company that tests products on animals.

The 2-1 decision was the first federal appellate court ruling on a constitutional challenge to the law.

Defense lawyers call the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty case only the latest example of the government infringing on activists' free speech. One compared it to the pursuit of communists and civil-rights activists a half-century ago.

"The government is always doing the same thing, prosecuting the loud leaders for conspiracy to commit particular crimes that they are not committing, and are not planning to commit," defense lawyer Peter Goldberger said Thursday.

Six members of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty were convicted at a 2006 trial in New Jersey of conspiracy to violate the 1992 Animal Enterprise Protection Act. The law, since revised, aimed to protect animal research laboratories from illegal, sometimes violent protests.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: animalrights; appealscourt; convictions; terrorism; upholds

1 posted on 10/15/2009 7:22:06 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

3rd Circuit


2 posted on 10/15/2009 7:23:06 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed .. Monthly Donor Onboard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Threats and violence? Why not promote boycotting? I won’t buy products that have been force-fed to animals. I don’t mind knowing who they are, so I will take my money elsewhere, but in no way would I encourage threats against them. Get them in the wallet, that hurts worse anyway.


3 posted on 10/15/2009 7:27:25 PM PDT by pray4liberty (http://totallyunjust.tripod.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pray4liberty

The Left would have no troube getting a law passed forbiding the abuse of livestock.

This is not good, though, if the threats were not clearly threats and incitment to kill specific people.

If it is an in general threat, the Left can use this to claim any “hate speech” is terrorism - the incitement to kill. Hate speech is whatever they say it is.


4 posted on 10/15/2009 8:04:08 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

IIRC, about a year or so after 9-11, the FBI said that after Islamic
terrorist, their second greatest concern was with environmentalist
“activism” groups.

If the US Justice Department keeps pressure on the domestic terrorists
during the Obamanation Adminstration...
I’ll be shocked (and somewhat pleased).


5 posted on 10/15/2009 9:05:20 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson