Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

Irond Will

Salvation122 wrote:

Irond Will wrote:

Aegeri wrote:

It's almost as if in this thread you've made the argument that such a law is unrequired because existing laws cover it, without actually explaining why those laws are adequate and working fine to justify your statement. Maybe it's just because I've been following this issue for a while that I know harsher penalties (something you derided earlier incidentally) are required among tougher legislation against harassment have been long overdue.

By all means, please do explain why if the law is working adequately as is without such additional legislatin as this, there is such concern on the likes of campuses about researchers and experiments coming under attack from these individuals.

It's not a question of "whether the laws are sufficient". It's a question of will to enforce. It's illegal to break shit. Cops are supposed to investigate it when people break shit. But guess what? Cops mostly don't really care all that much one way or another, especially because vandalism/ destruction of property is difficult to prove and really pretty unsexy work when it comes down to it.

Also, because vandalism / destruction of property, with very few exceptions, is a state offense, and not a federal one. The FBI is now legally able to investigate these cases, where before they were not unless ALF/ELF/Greenpeace/Who The Fuck Ever explicitly took credit for it.

If it's more than one instance, or the organization is, well, organized, the feds can go in under RICO.

Vandalism/ theft/ destruction of property should remain a state offense. I thought you were a conservative or something.

bone daddy

Dynagrip wrote:

God45 wrote:

The Cat wrote:

Conservatism: Because Your Stuff is More Important Than Real People!!

As someone who owns property (land), and who has infrequent problems with the locals thinking they can cull from it (and do to it) as they like, I feel the need to say fuck you.

In the case of the guy spiking his trees to discourage the logging company from poaching trees on his property, I have to say that was a rather clever idea on his part. Especially because it lends more credence to his claims that the logging company was stealing trees off his property.

I'm pretty sure booby-trapping is super illegal.

I think it might be legal if you have a clearly demarcated property line, post notices, and only engage in passive measures. Pretty sure it depends on the state, though.

Salvation122

The Cat wrote:

Take a look at the wording. That factsheet was right, its deliberately vague enough to make boycott incitement a crime. That's insane.

IT EXPLICITLY PROTECTS BOYCOTT INCITEMENT

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR GODDAMN MIND

The Cat wrote:

"I never said Stay The Course!"

Protip: Al Quaeda hasn't attacked anything on US soil in five years. ALF/ELF have.

Hacksaw

Dynagrip wrote:

God45 wrote:

The Cat wrote:

Conservatism: Because Your Stuff is More Important Than Real People!!

As someone who owns property (land), and who has infrequent problems with the locals thinking they can cull from it (and do to it) as they like, I feel the need to say fuck you.

In the case of the guy spiking his trees to discourage the logging company from poaching trees on his property, I have to say that was a rather clever idea on his part. Especially because it lends more credence to his claims that the logging company was stealing trees off his property.

I'm pretty sure booby-trapping is super illegal.

So is poaching trees. Unfortunately, it's hard to prove someone's been doing it unless you have some way clearly identify the trees on your property from the ones that aren't. If the guy said he spiked all the trees on his property, and the local saw mill loses one of its saws because it hit a spike in the log it was cutting, that's a sure-fire way to tell if the person who sold them the log was culling trees illegally from someone else's property. Sadly, it's illegal, and, like I said, there's very little that can be done to prove your case otherwise.

ArbitraryDescriptor

Aegeri wrote:

And have you explained where they were adequate? This is why an American researcher said to me once "Wow, I wish I had the freedom to work with the amount of animals you do. If we tried to do this sort of thing back home we would be lynched or our experiments utterly destroyed by the likes of the ALF".

It's almost as if in this thread you've made the argument that such a law is unrequired because existing laws cover it, without actually explaining why those laws are adequate and working fine to justify your statement. Maybe it's just because I've been following this issue for a while that I know harsher penalties (something you derided earlier incidentally) are required among tougher legislation against harassment have been long overdue.

By all means, please do explain why if the law is working adequately as is without such additional legislatin as this, there is such concern on the likes of campuses about researchers and experiments coming under attack from these individuals.

Aegeri, here is the existing law link

I commented on the contrast on the first page. The new bill expands the language of who it protects, adds 6 months and 2 years to existing sentences, and creates two new teirs of financial damage for >$100,000 and $1 million+.

Con: I find the expansion superfluos or inappropriate.

Neutral: The sentencing maximum increases are not going to stop anyone. 3 years vs 5? Lordy, I'm sure the crazy fuckers who do the shit that worries you will staighten right up.

Pro: The idea that you could get 3 years max for over a million in damages is pretty fucked up. But I'm pretty sure there is another law covering that, and these are just bonus charges for committing crimes against animal related entities. So, not really important to me.

The con outweighs the pro: Useless bill, waste of time and resources.

The Cat

Salvation122 wrote:

The Cat wrote:

"I never said Stay The Course!"

Protip: Al Quaeda hasn't attacked anything on US soil in five years. ALF/ELF have.

And the US and Al Qaeda are the only two aspects of the global terrorism problem that actualy count. Foreigners aren't real!

You're still sidestepping the issue of your claim that sugaring engines is worse than bombing people. Please address that.

Irond Will

Thanatos wrote:

Salvation122 wrote:

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.

If they don't hurt or kill people, how are they the largest terrorist thread, exactly?

I'm sorry, but I see a guy who will kill even one person as a much bigger threat than a hundred people who have no problem destroying a bunch of Hummers.

Also, Aegeri's Very Bad People sabotaged someone's research project. Cat's Very Bad People killed peoples' pet dogs.

I say point hippies.

Salvation122

Irond Will wrote:

Salvation122 wrote:

[quote="Irond Also, because vandalism / destruction of property, with very few exceptions, is a state offense, and not a federal one. The FBI is now legally able to investigate these cases, where before they were not unless ALF/ELF/Greenpeace/Who The Fuck Ever explicitly took credit for it.

If it's more than one instance, or the organization is, well, organized, the feds can go in under RICO.

Requires you to have significant evidence that the crime was carried out by an organized group.

Vandalism/ theft/ destruction of property should remain a state offense. I thought you were a conservative or something.

I am, and in most cases I believe it should. But as Aegeri points out, the state governments aren't really doing their jobs, here. If the FBI can fix some of these problems, they're welcome to it.

The Cat

Irond Will wrote:

Thanatos wrote:

Salvation122 wrote:

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.

If they don't hurt or kill people, how are they the largest terrorist thread, exactly?

I'm sorry, but I see a guy who will kill even one person as a much bigger threat than a hundred people who have no problem destroying a bunch of Hummers.

Also, Aegeri's Very Bad People sabotaged someone's research project. Cat's Very Bad People killed peoples' pet dogs.

I say point hippies.

They also murdered actual activists.

Irond Will

The Cat wrote:

Irond Will wrote:

Thanatos wrote:

Salvation122 wrote:

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.

If they don't hurt or kill people, how are they the largest terrorist thread, exactly?

I'm sorry, but I see a guy who will kill even one person as a much bigger threat than a hundred people who have no problem destroying a bunch of Hummers.

Also, Aegeri's Very Bad People sabotaged someone's research project. Cat's Very Bad People killed peoples' pet dogs.

I say point hippies.

They also murdered actual activists.

Yeah, killing people is bad. But killing pets is just malicious.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Irond Will

Salvation122 wrote:

Irond Will wrote:

Salvation122 wrote:

[quote="Irond Also, because vandalism / destruction of property, with very few exceptions, is a state offense, and not a federal one. The FBI is now legally able to investigate these cases, where before they were not unless ALF/ELF/Greenpeace/Who The Fuck Ever explicitly took credit for it.

If it's more than one instance, or the organization is, well, organized, the feds can go in under RICO.

Requires you to have significant evidence that the crime was carried out by an organized group.

If it wasn't carried out by an organized group, I don't really think that this legislation is appropriate.

Vandalism/ theft/ destruction of property should remain a state offense. I thought you were a conservative or something.

I am, and in most cases I believe it should. But as Aegeri points out, the state governments aren't really doing their jobs, here. If the FBI can fix some of these problems, they're welcome to it.

I dunno, dude. I'd put this up there with that stupid "Hate Crime" legislation. It ends up doing not much except allow for the occasional PR blitz when the crusading AG wants to swoop in and thwart the [wild-eyed hippy in California / unreformed racist in Tennessee] for doing something stupid with wood and fire.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

bone daddy

Irond Will wrote:

Yeah, killing people is bad. But killing pets is just malicious.

How do you figure? If you're willing to say shut up with bullets, it makes way more sense to try to silence someone by killing their dog than it does to say "Ah, fuck it," and stab them in the throat. If you get busted poisoning someone's dog, you don't have to worry about a prosecutor up for re-election demonstrating that you committed first-degree murder and frying your ass.

Joseph Stalin

Aegeri wrote:

ArbitraryDescriptor wrote:

Aegeri wrote:

ArbitraryDescriptor wrote:

Aegeri wrote:

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

It is already the law for the most part.

Though the new wording makes it very explicitly protect the families of employees, this is not the how that shit should be handled. Harrassment and vandlaism should be dealt with as such, not as "eco-terrorism"

So wait, you have a problem with the concept of calling a group of extremist nutters (for the most part) who use intimidation, arson, breaking and entering, direct physical violence and even explosives (they threatend to firebomb Oxford University should it go through with the building of a new lab for example) as... what? The idea of calling people who use such tactics terrorists makes perfect sense to me.

But maybe I live on the moon.

Or maybe, because I've had direct first hand experience with such people, have known many researchers who have that I know for a fact all you going "ololz it's part of the law already" don't realise how OVERDUE such SPECIFIC measures really are.

Again, I haven't seen a single post here beyond "OLOLZ ORWELLIAN SOCIETY, I R SO WITTAY" that has any real relevance to opposition to this bill. The text of it that Salvation posted has nothing unreasonable about it. I've still yet to see a satisfactory explanation otherwise.

Let me try again

There are already laws against this shit.

And have you explained where they were adequate? This is why an American researcher said to me once "Wow, I wish I had the freedom to work with the amount of animals you do. If we tried to do this sort of thing back home we would be lynched or our experiments utterly destroyed by the likes of the ALF".

It's almost as if in this thread you've made the argument that such a law is unrequired because existing laws cover it, without actually explaining why those laws are adequate and working fine to justify your statement. Maybe it's just because I've been following this issue for a while that I know harsher penalties (something you derided earlier incidentally) are required among tougher legislation against harassment have been long overdue.

By all means, please do explain why if the law is working adequately as is without such additional legislatin as this, there is such concern on the likes of campuses about researchers and experiments coming under attack from these individuals.

What makes you think that this law will solve any of the problems? Radicals are not sitting around calculating the punishment if they get caught. Frankly, they seem to not care. The bill does not give any rights to preemptive investigation, so once again it only applys after the crime has been comitted.

Based on the fact that the law covers this shit, I think the burden of proof is on you to show that it would, in some way, help.

Irond Will

Aegeri wrote:

Irond Will wrote:

It's not a question of "whether the laws are sufficient".

Yes it is.

If the laws are insufficient to enable enforcement or prevent threats/harassment (because a prosecution might be difficult to actually obtain under current laws) or the penalties for such a breach are too small to be relevant then this is definitely an important part of the entire thing.

So again, prove your point. I'm tired of you just asserting the laws are fine and not thinking you need to do shit to establish that. PROVE IT. The very fact I KNOW so many researchers have been threatened, experiments ruined and the like precisely because the law is not sufficient to cover a wide type of harassment, threats and fairly pathetic penalties (all up) when a prosecution is obtained that I thoroughly disagree.

I'm not giving you this part of the debate until you actually prove stronger legislation is not required in the US. Stronger enforcement is also something I would want most definitely, but to me, the language of this bill is a great step forward for once.

And again, nowhere in this bill does it specify such acts as terrorism, only in the title of the legislation but it does not actually apply that anywhere else.

Pro-tip: In American politics, if a bill has "Terrorism" is in the title but nowhere in the bill, it means it's a political sop. And you know what? It's not even a sop to you researchers who torment bunnies. The right-wing pols don't give a shit about you. It's about big contributors like strip-miners and loggers getting their equipment sabotaged, and possibly about the Beef Council not being forced to advertise it when they use some new hormone cocktail in their milk cows.

Now, your research buddies being threatened or stalked or having their property damaged is illegal. Restating that fact in stupid symbolic legislation doesn't "raise awareness," and it doesn't ensure or even encourage enforcement. I don't know why you expect me to prove to you that increasing the maximum sentence of vandalism by six months is going to stop people from fucking with your American buddies.

This bill does basically nothing, except to potentially expand some of these actions to federal scope, which they probably would have been already if the organizations actually have a name and commit crimes worthy of attention.

Salvation122

Irond Will wrote:

I dunno, dude. I'd put this up there with that stupid "Hate Crime" legislation.

Poor analogy. Hate crime legislation is, firstly, also state legislation, and secondly is mostly used as a modifier to existing crimes (mostly through higher sentencing.)

Salvation122

Irond Will wrote:

Pro-tip: In American politics, if a bill has "Terrorism" is in the title but nowhere in the bill, it means it's a political sop. And you know what? It's not even a sop to you researchers who torment bunnies. The right-wing pols don't give a shit about you. It's about big contributors like strip-miners and loggers getting their equipment sabotaged, and possibly about the Beef Council not being forced to advertise it when they use some new hormone cocktail in their milk cows.

Now, your research buddies being threatened or stalked or having their property damaged is illegal. Restating that fact in stupid symbolic legislation doesn't "raise awareness," and it doesn't ensure or even encourage enforcement. I don't know why you expect me to prove to you that increasing the maximum sentence of vandalism by six months is going to stop people from fucking with your American buddies.

This bill does basically nothing, except to potentially expand some of these actions to federal scope, which they probably would have been already if the organizations actually have a name and commit crimes worthy of attention.

I should point out that there's also probably a federal justification for it, in that it defends against people screwing with research that was most likely funded at least in part through federal money. Maybe the agriculture department is pissed off that their research projects keep getting torched or stolen.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

The Cat

Irond Will wrote:

Pro-tip: In American politics, if a bill has "Terrorism" is in the title but nowhere in the bill, it means it's a political sop. And you know what? It's not even a sop to you researchers who torment bunnies. The right-wing pols don't give a shit about you. It's about big contributors like strip-miners and loggers getting their equipment sabotaged, and possibly about the Beef Council not being forced to advertise it when they use some new hormone cocktail in their milk cows.

Yeah, see this is what really bothers me, but I wasn't sure how to put it into words. The law is designed, among other things, to remove one of the few remaining independent promoters of things like consumer awareness of food content. Its also designed to lend even more unwarranted priviledge to the primary extraction industry, which is already coddled to the point where it may as well be a kind of government department. Its about removing any ability of common people to protest pure-capitalist actions, which I define as actions designed to maximise profit no matter the cost to other people. Such actions thrive on being hidden, and activism helps uncover them. Activists are often jackasses, but more often they serve an important function - letting you know when you're being fucked over.

Irond Will

Aegeri wrote:

I see. Let's see you be threatened to be killed by some of these people and let's ask you about your attitude to them ok? Sounds like fun?

Oh wait, it isn't?

Fuck off. I'm in a line of business that gets the odd death-treat as well. It doesn't mean that reclassifying the nuts who think I'm a Horrible Person as "ur-terrorists" or whatever is going to do anything.

Aegeri wrote:

And there I was just thinking you had made a really ridiculous and fucking stupid strawman of what I've been talking about. Silly me, keeping to the topic of the thread. In future, I'll remember that if the animal rights movement make threats against my life, that's nowhere near as bad as the people terrorists who make threats against the lives of other human beings.

Your point is a fucking strawman, because it's, in essence "I hate these people and they're vicious so any law that seems to point at them must be a Step In The Right Direction". Now you're asking me to prove that repackaging a law with the word "Terrorism" is ineffective, and sputtering with outrage because I think it's shitty that some fuckers killed some hippies' pet dogs.

Salvation122

The Cat wrote:

Its about removing any ability of common people to protest pure-capitalist actions,

*bangs
*head
*against
*wall
*repeatedly

ArbitraryDescriptor

Salvation122 wrote:

Irond Will wrote:

I dunno, dude. I'd put this up there with that stupid "Hate Crime" legislation.

Poor analogy. Hate crime legislation is, firstly, also state legislation, and secondly is mostly used as a modifier to existing crimes (mostly through higher sentencing.)

If I tag Walmart with $5,000 worth of sandblasting bills claiming to have been "there" I'm charged with vandalism. If I satisfied the intent under this statute I would now be eligible for bonus federal modifier for harming a client of Animal Enterprise.

Can I not be charged with both since they are state and federal? I am under the impression that you can.

Salvation122

ArbitraryDescriptor wrote:

Salvation122 wrote:

Irond Will wrote:

I dunno, dude. I'd put this up there with that stupid "Hate Crime" legislation.

Poor analogy. Hate crime legislation is, firstly, also state legislation, and secondly is mostly used as a modifier to existing crimes (mostly through higher sentencing.)

If I tag Walmart with $5,000 worth of sandblasting bills claiming to have been "there" I'm charged with vandalism. If I satisfied the intent under this statute I would now be eligible for bonus federal modifier for harming a client of Animal Enterprise.

Given that you explicitly note it's because they're selling factory-farmed eggs or whatever.

Can I not be charged with both since they are state and federal? I am under the impression that you can.

You can. In practice you'll probably be able to plead out of one or the other, and you now have additional people (generally regarded as better at their jobs) looking for you in addition to Metro Police. People seem to be ignoring the fact that this legislation innately brings more resources in the form of the DoJ.

Irond Will

Salvation122 wrote:

Irond Will wrote:

I dunno, dude. I'd put this up there with that stupid "Hate Crime" legislation.

Poor analogy. Hate crime legislation is, firstly, also state legislation, and secondly is mostly used as a modifier to existing crimes (mostly through higher sentencing.)

I'm pretty sure there's federal hate crime legislation, and I'm pretty sure it basically exists in order to allow for federal intercession when the AG so desires it.

This bill appears to redefine certain types of "vandalism" and some stuff that looks a little like tort law into federal criminal law. I'm not even really sure who would have jursidiction over something like this, and it seems like double jeopardy might apply if both agencies went after them.

Salvation122

Irond Will wrote:

Salvation122 wrote:

Irond Will wrote:

I dunno, dude. I'd put this up there with that stupid "Hate Crime" legislation.

Poor analogy. Hate crime legislation is, firstly, also state legislation, and secondly is mostly used as a modifier to existing crimes (mostly through higher sentencing.)

I'm pretty sure there's federal hate crime legislation, and I'm pretty sure it basically exists in order to allow for federal intercession when the AG so desires it.

There is - which I hadn't realized, although it rarely comes into play because it obviously only applies to federal law, and fed. law isn't really conduscive to hate crime infringment - but it is indeed only a sentencing modifier.

I'm not even really sure who would have jursidiction over something like this, and it seems like double jeopardy might apply if both agencies went after them.

You have two laws being broken through a single act. You'd have shared jurisdiction, and double jeopardy would not apply.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Irond Will

Salvation122 wrote:

I'm not even really sure who would have jursidiction over something like this, and it seems like double jeopardy might apply if both agencies went after them.

You have two laws being broken through a single act. You'd have shared jurisdiction, and double jeopardy would not apply.

You're probably right, but I really do think that this double-teaming of federal and state charges is pretty much bullshit from a legal intent point of view. It's idiotic to be tried for "Vandalism" and "Vandal-errorism II" for the same crime.

Salvation122

Irond Will wrote:

Salvation122 wrote:

I'm not even really sure who would have jursidiction over something like this, and it seems like double jeopardy might apply if both agencies went after them.

You have two laws being broken through a single act. You'd have shared jurisdiction, and double jeopardy would not apply.

You're probably right, but I really do think that this double-teaming of federal and state charges is pretty much bullshit from a legal intent point of view. It's idiotic to be tried for "Vandalism" and "Vandal-errorism II" for the same crime.

That happens all the time dude. Fraud cases especially.

The Cat

Salvation122 wrote:

The Cat wrote:

Its about removing any ability of common people to protest pure-capitalist actions,

*bangs
*head
*against
*wall
*repeatedly

You've repeatedly failed to address any of my actual points. At what stage should I just decide you're trolling because you don't like my beliefs?

by the way, "it already happens" is in no way a valid argument.

BubbaT

Irond Will wrote:

Yeah, killing people is bad. But killing pets is just malicious.

The ALF doesn't "kill" your pets or research animals, technically. They just sorta "liberate" them into the middle of a busy highway.

Joseph Stalin

BubbaT wrote:

Irond Will wrote:

Yeah, killing people is bad. But killing pets is just malicious.

The ALF doesn't "kill" your pets or research animals, technically. They just sorta "liberate" them into the middle of a busy highway.

:?:

Irond Will

Aegeri wrote:

In American politics, if a bill has "Terrorism" is in the title but nowhere in the bill, it means it's a political sop. And you know what? It's not even a sop to you researchers who torment bunnies.

I do not torture any animals in my work and any animals we work with go through a rigorous blah blah blah

Apparently I'm sucking at Irony today, or else you're really touchy about the torturing bunnies thing, because I don't consider "animal research" to be "bunny torture". I was being flippant. I was educated as a scientist, and I'm entirely behind animal research.

I'm also, as I've stated about a zillion times in this thread, not a big fan of environmental protestors, and less so towards the guys who want to break stuff or threaten people.

I just don't like meaningless legislation, and I don't like misappropriation of language for making political vendettas official. If you think the laws are insufficient to protect your American scientist buddies (they're not, though enforcement might be), then the worst way to reform them is to reclassify them under some symbolic federal umbrella legislation that will be taken up at political whims and - rest assured - never to keep a scientist from being harrassed.

Incorrect. Read my posts. I've stated very clearly that I do not think current laws are effective and have not been effective in many cases. I've stated that I think tougher legislation is required and this IS a good step in the right direction.

It's a good step in the right direction if it takes what you consider to be an important issue, moves it sideways into the political arena, and focuses its enforcement on things that have nothing to do with what you consider to be the problem?

Quote me. I asked a certain side in this argument to prove EXISTING legislation was adequate. If you're not going to read my posts please stop responding with ignorant crap to them.

Yeah - okay. Death threats are illegal here in the Wild West. So's destruction of private property and vandalism. If it's not enforced, it doesn't matter if it has a fancy new name or not.

Irond Will

BubbaT wrote:

Irond Will wrote:

Yeah, killing people is bad. But killing pets is just malicious.

The ALF doesn't "kill" your pets or research animals, technically. They just sorta "liberate" them into the middle of a busy highway.

It was the other guys who were apparently slughtering peoples' pets. Ca'ts link had some filthy jackholes who kidnapped some hippy's dog, bled it to death, and threw it back in their driveway.

The hippies generally seem to do boneheaded shit like throwing research fish in drinking reservoirs or liberating a pack of hyenae to "run free" in suburbia. It ends up doing a lot of damage, and the animals sometimes end up dying because of their general dumbness, but it's not intentionally vicious like murdering a pet.

Feral

Aegeri wrote:

In American politics, if a bill has "Terrorism" is in the title but nowhere in the bill, it means it's a political sop. And you know what? It's not even a sop to you researchers who torment bunnies.

I do not torture any animals in my work and any animals we work with go through a rigorous ethical as well as scientific assessment to see if the work is justified, if the animals used are treated correctly and if there aren't better alternatives that can avoid the use of animals. If you don't quite understand that the use of animals in research is highly regulated (especially in todays environment) in nearly any reputable university and that alternatives are being sought continually then you're not particularly qualified to comment.

I suggest not doing so given your string of ignorant posts to me so far.

Okay, Aegeri, take a deep breath. Nobody here actually thinks you get hard torturing small animals. IW was just being clever.

Aegeri wrote:

I've stated very clearly that I do not think current laws are effective and have not been effective in many cases. I've stated that I think tougher legislation is required and this IS a good step in the right direction.

Okay, based on what? A PhD researcher saying that he can't do work because he's afraid of ALF? Yes, ALF is a group of nutcases (and, by the way, are already listed as a terrorist organization in the US) but is a 100% elimination of the all nutcases in the world everywhere necessary for us to declare that current sentencing is effective? ALF has managed to have a few high-profile operations but I have difficulty believing that they're this widespread cancer you seem to portray them as.

And while we're comparing anecdotal evidence, the company I work for tracks the market dynamics affecting biotech companies who sell research animals. That's not part of my job, but it happens to be part of the job of the guy who sits one desk down from me and I have to listen to him babble on all day about genetically modified primates. I asked him to hand me a watch-list of the major market factors affecting the sale of research primates and "threat of terrorism" is nowhere on that list. If animal rights terrorism is such a widespread threat to animal research, why aren't the companies who sell research animals concerned about it affecting their bottom lines?

Aegeri wrote:

So far, nobody has explained what is unreasonable about the text of the bill

Actually, it's been explained several times. You've just managed to ignore it. It uses vague language to increase sentencing on people who cause "economic damage" in the course of a protest. Applied loosely, this could have a chilling effect on lawful protest. "But, Feral, the bill exempts lawful protests," you might say. Why yes, but often lawful protesters are caught in some minor violation of traffic, civil, or even postal code which could then make their protest technically 'unlawful.'

Aegeri wrote:

Now we've shifted the argument to "Is this going to be effective", of which I'm fairly sceptical but will maintain the fact that at least someone has recognised there is a problem and the laws are being strengthened.

If you want to recognize the problem how about increased funding to domestic and foreign intelligence agencies so we can actually find the specific people responsible for the acts you've got your panties in a bunch about?

Aegeri wrote:

Again, you get DIRECTLY threatened by these kind of people and let's see your opinion on them.

I'm sympathetic. But please acknowledge that you're not the only person here who's been given a death threat.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Irond Will

Aegeri wrote:

Apparently I'm sucking at Irony today, or else you're really touchy about the torturing bunnies thing, because I don't consider "animal research" to be "bunny torture".

Then don't make stupid fucking comments. There was nothing ironic about the context of the quote and given my own research you had to be aware I would find it directly offensive.

Suck it up. If you're going to flip out whenever someone implies that zomg animal research is inhumane, you're in the wrong fucking business.

Salvation122

The Cat wrote:

Salvation122 wrote:

The Cat wrote:

Its about removing any ability of common people to protest pure-capitalist actions,

*bangs
*head
*against
*wall
*repeatedly

You've repeatedly failed to address any of my actual points. At what stage should I just decide you're trolling because you don't like my beliefs?

I answered them for half of page two. This law in no way removes your ability to peacefully protest. It explicitly states that boycotts, calls to boycott, and peaceful assemblies are not subject to the law. It just makes it a federal crime to break shit because you don't like people injecting fluffy bunnies with cancers. You're being inordinately dense, and I'm honestly starting to think you're doing it just to piss me off.

Feral wrote:

Okay, based on what? A PhD researcher saying that he can't do work because he's afraid of ALF? Yes, ALF is a group of nutcases (and, by the way, are already listed as a terrorist organization in the US) but is a 100% elimination of the all nutcases in the world everywhere necessary for us to declare that current sentencing is effective? ALF has managed to have a few high-profile operations but I have difficulty believing that they're this widespread cancer you seem to portray them as.

ALF/ELF is the single largest, most active terrorist organization in the United States. The FBI considers them a "serious domestic threat."

Actually, it's been explained several times. You've just managed to ignore it. It uses vague language to increase sentencing on people who cause "economic damage" in the course of a protest. Applied loosely, this could have a chilling effect on lawful protest. "But, Feral, the bill exempts lawful protests," you might say. Why yes, but often lawful protesters are caught in some minor violation of traffic, civil, or even postal code which could then make their protest technically 'unlawful.'

Economic damages are very clearly defined, and cannot reasonably be subject to people who aren't either blowing things up or deliberately intimidating others. So PETA can't scream in people's faces anymore, but other than that you can protest unabated.

Jinnigan

One FBI press release about the ALF. And another one.

The defendants are accused of attacks on federal land and animal management sites, private meat packing plants, lumber facilities, and a car dealership with damages reaching $80 million. In 2004, the FBI estimated ELF, ALF and related extremist groups had committed more than 1,100 criminal acts since 1976 with damage estimates over $100 million.

Feral

Salvation122 wrote:

Economic damages are very clearly defined, and cannot reasonably be subject to people who aren't either blowing things up or deliberately intimidating others. So PETA can't scream in people's faces anymore, but other than that you can protest unabated.

Every time I've seen "economic damages" used anywhere in print it's included things like loss of productivity, loss of wages, and loss of business. That's the part that bothers me. If I'm mistaken, let me know and point me to a resource where I can reeducate myself.