Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero Registered User regular
edited November 2006 in Debate and/or Discourse
Well there is a new piece of retarded legislation making the rounds that would make boycotting, whistle blowing, and peaceful protests in the name of animal rights and advocacy illegal and label them terrorist acts.

For instance, if you encouraged people on the internet not to buy a particular brand of meat product because it was produced via factory farming, you could be charged with terrorism.

Apparently this act would also protect animal fighting.

Here's a fact sheet on the AETA. I apologize in advance if reading it hurts your brain.

Now I severely doubt this thing is going to get passed, but how exactly does shit like this even receive consideration? Yeah, sure, some PETA nuts will vandalize an animal testing facility now and then... but does that really call for something like the AETA? I think not.

AbsoluteZero on
3DS Friend Code: 0817-5033-8184 // Nintendo Network ID: AbsoluteZero
«134

Posts

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Doc wrote:
    That's pretty dumb. I'd like an act that just makes it ok for me to punch people in the face who really think protesting accomplishes anything other than making you look like a useless twat.

    In some cases it works pretty well. One pet store here was driven out of business because the owner kept getting his dogs from puppy mills. Some people stood outside his store with signs and actually raised awareness.

    The people that do things like protest KFC aren't doing anything useful, though. I have to imagine that the people who go there already know what they are eating.

    Some people being idiots is not a reason to ban protesting etc.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.

    That said, I can't actually find the real bill, and I'm not about to swallow a blog report wholesale until I've read the legislation in question.

    sig.png
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Yeah, in a case like that, where it's something small, I can see affecting change, but it seems like, especially with these groups, it's often against something so big that even if they convince a few people, they won't make much of a dent.

    Yeah, but they'll still make a dent, even if it's a small one. Just as importantly, the person's money will now be going to a competitor whose business practices are (hopefully) less offensive.

  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Fencingsax wrote:
    Doc wrote:
    That's pretty dumb. I'd like an act that just makes it ok for me to punch people in the face who really think protesting accomplishes anything other than making you look like a useless twat.

    In some cases it works pretty well. One pet store here was driven out of business because the owner kept getting his dogs from puppy mills. Some people stood outside his store with signs and actually raised awareness.

    The people that do things like protest KFC aren't doing anything useful, though. I have to imagine that the people who go there already know what they are eating.

    Some people being idiots is not a reason to ban protesting etc.

    Oh no, I'm not saying we should ban it, just that it's usually a fine combination of stupid, and useless...but if that's how people want to use their time, they're free to, as long as they don't get in the way.

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    They don't usually kill people

    Has there ever been a case where they've killed someone?

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Found the text of the bill as adopted, and the Humane Society and about ninety different blogs are all full of shit.
    (d) Definitions- As used in this section--
    
                `(1) the term `animal enterprise' means--
    
                      `(A) a commercial or academic enterprise that uses or sells animals or animal products for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture, education, research, or testing;
    
                      `(B) a zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other lawful competitive animal event; or
    
                      `(C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences;
    
                `(2) the term `course of conduct' means a pattern of conduct composed of 2 or more acts, evidencing a continuity of purpose;
    
                `(3) the term `economic damage'--
    
                      `(A) means the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, the loss of profits, or increased costs, including losses and increased costs resulting from threats, acts or vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person's or entity's connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise; but
    
                      `(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;
    
    (e) Rules of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed--
    
                `(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution;
    
                `(2) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference; or
    
                `(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this action, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies.'.
    

    sig.png
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.

    That said, I can't actually find the real bill, and I'm not about to swallow a blog report wholesale until I've read the legislation in question.

    Here ya go.

    3DS Friend Code: 0817-5033-8184 // Nintendo Network ID: AbsoluteZero
  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited November 2006
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.

    I'm not terribly fond of the Earth Firsters either, but I wonder how this can be true. Do you mean "largest" in the sense that the Sierra Club has more members than Al Qaieda?

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    That whole "Rules of Construction" bit isn't even present in the copy of the bill I am looking at.

    3DS Friend Code: 0817-5033-8184 // Nintendo Network ID: AbsoluteZero
  • TiemlerTiemler Registered User
    edited November 2006
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people...

    You realize, I hope, how that sounds.

    But yes, they have killed people. Not in numbers that look huge in headlines but are still statistically insignificant as a cause of death, like "real" terrorists, but still tragic. There's one scumbag that Penn & Teller proved is being supported financially by PETA, an arsonist whose firebug tendencies have already claimed innocent lives. Of course, one wouldn't expect an organization that compares, nay, insists that poultry farms are as bad as the Holocaust, to have any reservations about burning research labs with the grad students still inside.

    That said, everything that actual ecoterrorists do at the moment is already illegal. So this is just another piece of unconstitutional "anti-terror" legislation that is really aimed right at civil liberties.

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    That whole "Rules of Construction" bit isn't even present in the copy of the bill I am looking at.
    That's because you're looking at House 4239, and not Senate 3880. The Senate bill is the one the fact sheet you posted cites, so it's the one I posted.
    Tiemler wrote:
    That said, everything that actual ecoterrorists do at the moment is already illegal. So this is just another piece of unconstitutional "anti-terror" legislation that is really aimed right at civil liberties.
    ...it expressly provides for peaceful demonstration and boycotts. Read my post after the one you quoted.

    sig.png
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Can anyone cite a specific case where ecoterrorism has killed a person?

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.

    That said, I can't actually find the real bill, and I'm not about to swallow a blog report wholesale until I've read the legislation in question.

    That's what I said. I'm sure sounds all well and scary coming from those militant radicals at the Humane Society, but how dumb is it really?


    House version, but I see no reference to terrorism. Violation of this statute is charged under this statute. They aren't going to black bag you, it's mostly still fines and token sentences.

    BUT

    Title 18 USC S.43 (The bit being amended)

    those sentences did not used to be so high. You still have to do more than $10,000 to get more than a year (which you probably wouldn't even serve all of on your second offense).

    Regardless of the exaggerations presented (by the Humane Society, whom I kid), this bill is stupid, superfluous, and excessive. The threat of eco-terrorism is no greater than it was, why the sentence bump? Previously there was >$10,000 damage, and <$10,000 in damage. They rated 3 years and 6 months and restitution. This bill makes it 5 years, 1 year, and 10 years for over $100,000 (and restitution).

    It also expands the scope of this section to cover offenses against associates of people involved in the animal business.

    Thats it. The 3 year sentences for $10,000->$99,999 and assault are now a max of 5. And fucking with Frank Perdue's neighbor is now covered.

    Big deal. Sentence enhancements don't seem necessary, and if it isn't necessary it shouldn't be. That's the cardinal rule of lawmaking in my mind.

    So ultimately I agree that it is stupid, but and stupid legislation should be fought at every turn, but I don't care for exaggeration; even if it is the only way to get people to listen. Maybe I'm missing something, but until it is pointed out: For shame HSUS.

    Automata-Sg.png
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Doc wrote:
    Can anyone cite a specific case where ecoterrorism has killed a person?
    Unabomber?

    sig.png
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Doc wrote:
    Can anyone cite a specific case where ecoterrorism has killed a person?
    Unabomber?

    Anti-technology/pro-individual radicalism is not the same as pro-environment radicalism.

  • bone daddybone daddy Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited November 2006
    Doc wrote:
    Can anyone cite a specific case where ecoterrorism has killed a person?
    Unabomber?
    ...the libertarian luddite unabomber?

    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.

    That said, I can't actually find the real bill, and I'm not about to swallow a blog report wholesale until I've read the legislation in question.

    That's what I said. I'm sure sounds all well and scary coming from those militant radicals at the Humane Society, but how dumb is it really?

    House version, but I see no reference to terrorism. Violation of this statute is charged under this statute. They aren't going to black bag you, it's mostly still fines and token sentences.
    HEY

    HEY YOU

    THIS IS THE VERSION THAT PASSED, NOT THE HOUSE BILL

    THE HOUSE BILL ISN'T OUT OF COMMITTEE

    sig.png
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.

    That said, I can't actually find the real bill, and I'm not about to swallow a blog report wholesale until I've read the legislation in question.

    That's what I said. I'm sure sounds all well and scary coming from those militant radicals at the Humane Society, but how dumb is it really?

    House version, but I see no reference to terrorism. Violation of this statute is charged under this statute. They aren't going to black bag you, it's mostly still fines and token sentences.
    HEY

    HEY YOU

    THIS IS THE VERSION THAT PASSED, NOT THE HOUSE BILL

    THE HOUSE BILL ISN'T OUT OF COMMITTEE

    Yes, it passed the Senate, and now it's in the House. I started typing that immediately after you made the post I quoted. There's no need for large letters.

    Automata-Sg.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    So now if a self-righteous hippie throws red paint on some pretentious bitch's fur coat, he's not just a smug twat but a terrorist too?

    Seriously, though. Sometimes protestors get arrested for really minor violations of the law, like trespassing (because they let one foot touch the soil owned by the business they're protesting) or disturbing the peace (because they were blocking the sidewalk outside of the business) or jaywalking (because they took a few steps into the street to stop blocking the sidewalk outside of the business). So now that their protests are no longer "lawful" does that mean the cops get to haul them in on terrorism charges, too? Dandy!

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.

    That said, I can't actually find the real bill, and I'm not about to swallow a blog report wholesale until I've read the legislation in question.

    Blowing up / setting on fire things, expensive or otherwise, is already very much illegal. This law is just fuckmuppetry.

  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited November 2006
    Feral wrote:
    So now if a self-righteous hippie throws red paint on some pretentious bitch's fur coat, he's not just a smug twat but a terrorist too?

    Seriously, though. Sometimes protestors get arrested for really minor violations of the law, like trespassing (because they let one foot touch the soil owned by the business they're protesting) or disturbing the peace (because they were blocking the sidewalk outside of the business) or jaywalking (because they took a few steps into the street to stop blocking the sidewalk outside of the business). So now that their protests are no longer "lawful" does that mean the cops get to haul them in on terrorism charges, too? Dandy!

    Awesomer is when you couple it with the newly-limited legal rights of terrorists. I wonder how much red paint is required to hit "enemy combatant" status?

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    Feral wrote:
    So now if a self-righteous hippie throws red paint on some pretentious bitch's fur coat, he's not just a smug twat but a terrorist too?

    Seriously, though. Sometimes protestors get arrested for really minor violations of the law, like trespassing (because they let one foot touch the soil owned by the business they're protesting) or disturbing the peace (because they were blocking the sidewalk outside of the business) or jaywalking (because they took a few steps into the street to stop blocking the sidewalk outside of the business). So now that their protests are no longer "lawful" does that mean the cops get to haul them in on terrorism charges, too? Dandy!

    Awesomer is when you couple it with the newly-limited legal rights of terrorists. I wonder how much red paint is required to hit "enemy combatant" status?

    Greenpeace :arrow: Guantanamo!

    I wonder how many more generations it's going to be before we're like that planet on that episode of Star Trek where Wesley stumbles into a flower pot and they sentence him to death. (Yes I know that's a slippery slope and no I don't care)

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    That whole "Rules of Construction" bit isn't even present in the copy of the bill I am looking at.
    That's because you're looking at House 4239, and not Senate 3880. The Senate bill is the one the fact sheet you posted cites, so it's the one I posted.
    Tiemler wrote:
    That said, everything that actual ecoterrorists do at the moment is already illegal. So this is just another piece of unconstitutional "anti-terror" legislation that is really aimed right at civil liberties.
    ...it expressly provides for peaceful demonstration and boycotts. Read my post after the one you quoted.

    And then goes on to define "violent protests" as ones that cause "economic damage"

    Worded in such a way ("harrassment" and "acts") that is easily vague enough to get broad interpetation, even with the explicit restrictions.

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    Feral wrote:
    So now if a self-righteous hippie throws red paint on some pretentious bitch's fur coat, he's not just a smug twat but a terrorist too?

    Seriously, though. Sometimes protestors get arrested for really minor violations of the law, like trespassing (because they let one foot touch the soil owned by the business they're protesting) or disturbing the peace (because they were blocking the sidewalk outside of the business) or jaywalking (because they took a few steps into the street to stop blocking the sidewalk outside of the business). So now that their protests are no longer "lawful" does that mean the cops get to haul them in on terrorism charges, too? Dandy!
    Awesomer is when you couple it with the newly-limited legal rights of terrorists. I wonder how much red paint is required to hit "enemy combatant" status?
    Read the goddamned legislation

    It's called a "terrorism act," but those in violation are not considered terrorists due to this act.
    Goumindong wrote:
    And then goes on to define "violent protests" as ones that cause "economic damage"
    (3) the term `economic damage'--

    `(A) means the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, the loss of profits, or increased costs, including losses and increased costs resulting from threats, acts or vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person's or entity's connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise; but

    `(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;

    sig.png
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Incorrect as "harrasment" and other "acts" definitly are. The law is much too easily interperted to grant terrorist status to protestors[not that we dont already have this problem]

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Goumindong wrote:
    Incorrect as "harrasment" and other "acts" definitly are. The law is much too easily interperted to grant terrorist status to protestors[not that we dont already have this problem]
    Terrorist status is explicitly defined elsewhere in the United States Code. This act does not modify that definition. Kindly stop talking out your ass.

    sig.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    It's called a "terrorism act," but those in violation are not considered terrorists due to this act.

    Isn't a "terrorist" traditionally somebody who commits a "terrorism act?" How fast and loose can our government play with the English language until we have to throw our hands up and say, "Holy shit, thousands of halfwit freshman college literature students are right! We are turning into an Orwell novel!"

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited November 2006
    [It's called a "terrorism act," but those in violation are not considered terrorists due to this act.

    Which kind of begs the question of why the fuck would one even mention the word "terrorism" in the bill in the first place?

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    [It's called a "terrorism act," but those in violation are not considered terrorists due to this act.

    Which kind of begs the question of why the fuck would one even mention the word "terrorism" in the bill in the first place?

    So they can get it passed, or at least classify those who vote against it as "weak on terrorism?"

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Feral wrote:
    It's called a "terrorism act," but those in violation are not considered terrorists due to this act.

    Isn't a "terrorist" traditionally somebody who commits a "terrorism act?" How fast and loose can our government play with the English language until we have to throw our hands up and say, "Holy shit, thousands of halfwit freshman college literature students are right! We are turning into an Orwell novel!"

    I think he means that the word terrorism just happens to be in the title. As in it is another bullshit "terrorism" act; it does not appear to say anything relating to the redefinition of terrorism.

    Automata-Sg.png
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Feral wrote:
    It's called a "terrorism act," but those in violation are not considered terrorists due to this act.

    Isn't a "terrorist" traditionally somebody who commits a "terrorism act?" How fast and loose can our government play with the English language until we have to throw our hands up and say, "Holy shit, thousands of halfwit freshman college literature students are right! We are turning into an Orwell novel!"
    No, no. The title of the bill is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. That is the only place the word "terrorism" is used in the entire text of the bill. The title of a bill is not exactly legal code.

    sig.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Feral wrote:
    It's called a "terrorism act," but those in violation are not considered terrorists due to this act.

    Isn't a "terrorist" traditionally somebody who commits a "terrorism act?" How fast and loose can our government play with the English language until we have to throw our hands up and say, "Holy shit, thousands of halfwit freshman college literature students are right! We are turning into an Orwell novel!"
    No, no. The title of the bill is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. That is the only place the word "terrorism" is used in the entire text of the bill. The title of a bill is not exactly legal code.

    Oh, gotcha.
    Sorry. My bad.
    I still think it's stupid.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Well that's because it is. This law already exists, they're just changing (expanding) language and increasing sentences; two things I have never observed to be in the interests of the people.

    Automata-Sg.png
  • redxredx East Bumblefuck, PARegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I was under the impression that lumberjacks/millworkers have been fatally injured because of spiked trees.

    All I've got is a snuggle hammer.
  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited November 2006
    Feral wrote:
    Oh, gotcha.
    Sorry. My bad.
    I still think it's stupid.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • AegeriAegeri Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    So wait, this bill means that idiots who threaten to kill researchers at labs. destroy emperiments and such are no longer able to and can be prosecuted properly. A law like this has been LONG overdue.

    I fail to see the issue here, especially with the wording of this:
    `(A) means the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, the loss of profits, or increased costs, including losses and increased costs resulting from threats, acts or vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person's or entity's connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise; but

    `(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;

    If this means these dickheads are no longer to camp outside a researchers house, throw shit (literally) at their family and do other things like that I'm all for this.

    I'd like a better explanation of why the above isn't perfectly reasonable beyond OLOLOZ ORWELLIAN SOCIETY!!!!1111oneone please.

  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited November 2006
    Aegeri wrote:
    If this means these dickheads are no longer to camp outside a researchers house, throw shit (literally) at their family and do other things like that I'm all for this.

    I'd like a better explanation of why the above isn't perfectly reasonable beyond OLOLOZ ORWELLIAN SOCIETY!!!!1111oneone please.

    Because throwing shit, stalking, and burning down facilities was already illegal. Hell, you could even get them on RICO. This bill appears to be nothing but a way to pin the appelation "Terrorist" onto eco-protestors.

    Again, I don't much care for these guys, but the whole "zomg ecoterrorist" thing is just retarded.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    redx wrote:
    I was under the impression that lumberjacks/millworkers have been fatally injured because of spiked trees.

    Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_spiking
    In 1987, California mill worker George Alexander was seriously injured when the bandsaw he was operating was shattered by a tree spike. While both the County sheriff and Alexander's employers, Louisiana-Pacific, blamed environmentalists for the spiking, when Earth First! activist Judi Bari obtained the sheriff's files on the incident some years later, she discovered that one of the suspects for the spiking was Bill Ervin, a 50 year old property-owner, unconnected with Earth First. While Ervin freely admitted spiking trees on his own land to prevent Louisiana-Pacific from taking timber on his side of the property line, he was never charged with spiking the tree that injured Alexander. It should be noted that if a sawmill is operating under OSHA guidelines workers would be protected from a saw blade malfunction so that injuries such as Alexander's wouldn't be possible.

    Emphasis mine. Ignoring the OSHA stuff, it's not unlikely that the spiked tree was poached from Ervin's property and had nothing to do with radical conservationists.

  • DynagripDynagrip destroy everything you touch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Aegeri wrote:
    So wait, this bill means that idiots who threaten to kill researchers at labs. destroy emperiments and such are no longer able to and can be prosecuted properly. A law like this has been LONG overdue.

    If this means these dickheads are no longer to camp outside a researchers house, throw shit (literally) at their family and do other things like that I'm all for this.

    I'd like a better explanation of why the above isn't perfectly reasonable beyond OLOLOZ ORWELLIAN SOCIETY!!!!1111oneone please.
    Somebody is a little sensitive about their torturing of primates.

    gusinrepose.png
  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited November 2006
    Doc wrote:
    Emphasis mine. Ignoring the OSHA stuff, it's not unlikely that the spiked tree was poached from Ervin's property and had nothing to do with radical conservationists.

    May he burn in Gitmo.

    Wqdwp8l.png
«134
Sign In or Register to comment.