The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
AbsoluteZero
The new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered User regular
The new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered User regular
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.
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
0
Posts
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.
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.
Some people being idiots is not a reason to ban protesting etc.
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.
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.
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.
Has there ever been a case where they've killed someone?
(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.'.Here ya go.
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?
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.
...it expressly provides for peaceful demonstration and boycotts. Read my post after the one you quoted.
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.
Anti-technology/pro-individual radicalism is not the same as pro-environment radicalism.
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.
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!
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Blowing up / setting on fire things, expensive or otherwise, is already very much illegal. This law is just fuckmuppetry.
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)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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.
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!"
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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?"
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.
Oh, gotcha.
Sorry. My bad.
I still think it's stupid.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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.