When I'm having a bad day, nothing picks me up like potential government infringement on civil liberties.
This, I suspect, is the mentality secretly held by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and many like-minded groups. I can imagine the employee of an activist organization discovering some incongruity in the government's latest bill or judicial ruling, then coming home with a broad grin on his face, exclaiming "June, dear, I just had the most wonderful day at work!"
Who, really, could blame them? One must get quite a rush from working to remove possible wrinkles from such a high authoritative level. Sometimes, however, such enthusiasm leads to seriously misplaced concern.
Take for instance the reaction of a large number of interested parties in response to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, passed by Congress several weeks ago. In a nutshell, the act amends an existing law that nixes intentional economic damage to a lawful enterprise that uses or sells animals. The new act introduces more detailed penalties, dependent on the extent of the damage, and specifically criminalizes threats of death and bodily harm directed at people involved in animal-related ventures; penalties of varying degrees of severity are applied to violators of this rule, as well.
Opponents of this act, a comprehensive listing of which can be found at stopaeta.org, offer the usual concerns: A successful protest might cause a loss in profits (or "economic damage") so civil disobedience may now be illegal, laws against harassment and vandalism already exist, the act specifically targets animal activists, the usual Our-First-Amendment-Rights-Are-Being-Violated argument, etc.
To be honest, the very title of this act initially gave me a smidgen of suspicion. In the last five years or so the term "terrorism" has been tossed around like confetti or, if you prefer, spread like lukewarm butter. The inclusion of the word in this bill's title caused my filthy liberal mind to draw an immediate association with obese politicians madly waving their pudgy little arms, trying to stir up some paralytic fear in the masses while taking broad liberties with the law.
To my pleasant surprise this was not the case. In my exhaustive research for this article, I found no mention of the word terrorism other than in the title of the bill. True, the act of damaging and instilling fear in animal-related activities is now indirectly connected with the hottest political catchword of the 21st century, but such actions could easily be interpreted as "domestic terrorism" on their own, anyway.
In the end of the document lurks something most of the act's opponents evidently overlooked. The final draft of the bill contains a section stressing that nothing in the bill should be interpreted as a prohibition or an obstacle to any right given in the First Amendment. Midway through, the bill even states that "economic damage" does not apply to any loss a firm may suffer from a lawful disruption (including boycotts, leaflet distribution, pictures of dead puppies, etc). These provisions directly contradict most of the complaints that far too many activist groups have over this bill.
The other concerns voiced by the act's opponents are sadly misled, as well. The act is more than an unnecessary reiteration of already-existing law, as many groups claim. The major new contribution this act introduces that was not included in the amended section's previous incarnation is the illegality of threats and intimidation toward people involved in an animal-related crime.
And given the actions a few animal activists take, the specific attention given to both threats and "animal enterprises" in this act is appropriate. UW-Madison's Wisconsin National Primate Research Center provides a fine example. Some of the more extreme activists have already mailed razors to several of the center's researchers, while others have left anonymous and threatening phone messages and trespassed on the researchers' respective private properties.
I fully support people's right to protest and oppose the WNPRC — though I personally don't know enough about the procedures and possible benefits of the facility to have a clear opinion on the matter — but threats go too far. The researchers at the center are working to find cures for diseases less profitable than the common cold or allergies; they are not there for the sheer exhilaration of hurting monkeys and do not deserve to be treated as such. This act further serves to prevent self-righteous, arrogant, aspiring vigilantes from acting like they're living in a comic book. Activists who truly practice civil disobedience have no reason to fear this act.
Jack Garigliano ([email protected]) is a freshman majoring in English.
