Ag-gag, Ecoterrorism, Agroterrorism

Summary:

This overview examines the legal issues that arise when animal activist take extreme measures to document animal cruelty. Their actions, ofter termed "ecoterrorism," often involve taking photographs of alleged animal cruelty that can often be admitted at trial. However, many states have begun to enact laws targeting the actions of animal activists.

Summary:

State animal terrorism laws have been enacted to protect agricultural research and production. The laws prohibit acts that obstruct, impede, or disrupt agricultural operations, research, or experimentation conducted at an animal facility. A person who violates a state animal terrorism law may be charged with a misdemeanor or a felony, face a stiff fine and prison term, and may be required to pay restitution. Opponents of such laws argue that they may violate state and federal constitutional rights.

Summary:

This paper examines laws enacted in response to what some politicians see as a trend toward extremism in the name of protecting animals, Congress and several states have passed, or are currently considering passing, legislation setting harsher penalties for those involved in what has now been coined “ecoterrorism” or “agroterrorism.” This paper will examine some of the recently passed laws and legislation and the cases which have interpreted these laws. It will then analyze some of the constitutional issues raised by critics of the new legislation.

Summary:

Ms. Tresl examines the constitutionality of hunter harassment laws. When a five-step doctrinal analysis is applied to hunter harassment statutes, it is clear that the statutes are content-based and subject to the strictest of scrutiny. Because the statutes fail the strict scrutiny test, they therefore violate the American citizenry's First Amendment right to free expression.

Summary:

Animal lovers and tree huggers were once deemed peaceful and benevolent activists. As our nation witnessed the increase in powerful lobbying on behalf of wealthy industries, that identity has been shattered by offensive epithets and reckless generalizations. Now those who preach kindness to the non-human species and respect for the environment are dumped into the same category as the group of individuals who fly planes into buildings and don explosive materials in high-traffic areas - those whose every violent action is designed to maim or murder a large number of innocent civilians. The defective grouping resulted from the gross mistake of legislatures across the country that enacted the fundamentally flawed so-called “eco terror bills.”

Summary:

This Article describes the model Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act its permutations currently pending in state legislatures, its proponents, and their motivations. It further explains the legal and rhetorical parallels between the Model Act and the USA Patriot Act. The Article predicts that courts will find the bills' constraints on speech to be undeniably content-based and without a sufficiently compelling state interest. In the end, the Article concludes by explaining how the bills exploit the USA Patriot Act's anti-terrorism rhetoric, and reveal a concerted corporate strategy to manipulate the term “terrorist” and capitalize on its potency, in an anticompetitive effort to secure protectionism from the adverse economic effects of criticism, protests, and boycotts.

Summary:

This book review seeks to introduce the major issues raised by the authors of the essays in "Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?" and to commend Best and Nocella for their valuable contribution to the body of animal rights theory and practice.

Summary:

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) creates yet another obstacle for the animal advocacy movement. This article explores the reasons behind the AETA’s enactment and its implications for those who advocate on behalf of animals. The author notes the AETA targets individuals based solely on their political ideology and can deter these individuals from exercising their right to free speech due to the threat of being permanently branded as a terrorist. It is this infringement on First Amendment rights, coupled with the AETA’s overbreadth and vagueness, that lead the author to conclude the AETA is unconstitutional. The author also notes the many social policy flaws within the AETA and finds that the AETA is unnecessary, as existing laws cover every crime encompassed in its language. These defects lead the author to call for the AETA’s repeal and to suggest that individuals look to the judiciary for change.

Summary:

The animal advocacy movement is facing another obstacle, resulting from the creation of the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act (AETA). The Act seeks to create harsh penalties including a Terrorist Registry for acts performed by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and ALF-type actors. In addition, the proposed legislation will affect animal advocates not involved with the ALF. However, the model legislation, as written, must pass Constitutional scrutiny. This paper argues that the proposed Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act is unconstitutional due to its infringement on the First Amendment, its overbreadth, and its vagueness.