Breaking the Law?

Although animal rights groups are increasingly using “peaceful” tactics to influence animal welfare, law-breaking, non-peaceful tactics such as having members break into facilities and videotape the operation to “expose” rearing practices are still being employed.

But do these tactics break the law? In recent months, questions have been raised as to whether or not existing federal laws in the U.S., and laws being proposed in some states, enfringe upon the First-Amendent rights of animal rights activists.

A Jan. 13 article entitled “Where’s the legal line drawn in animal-rights activism?” in the Sacramento Bee, a California-based newspaper, reported that a new lawsuit filed by Minnesota activist Sarahjane Blum (the founder of Gourmetcruelty.com) and four other (unnamed) activists is challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 2006. The activists’ lawyer says in the article that the “law reaches too broadly” and that it “violates the first amendment rights of those who want to protest how animals are treated.”

The Act states that animal rights advocates may be prosecuted if their actions cause the loss of real or personal property of an animal enterprise, or if they travel across state lines for the “purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise.” It was created in part to respond to “the greater scope of terrorist activity,” according to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who championed the bill in the House. She said stricter penalties were needed to stop activism evolving into violence, for example, bombings of laboratories that use animals for research.

The lawsuit spearheaded by Blum contends passive tactics such as picketing could now be targeted for prosecution because companies could lose business or have to pay for things such as extra security. Blum says in the article that she is “stunned” that the important ethical work she has achieved (her website helped to persuade the California legislature to ban foie gras production in 2004) would be seen under the Act’s definition as an act of “terrorism.”

Although picketing companies or persuading consumers and government via web and ballot initiatives are clearly less invasive than direct acts of violence – such as the recent arson case at Harris Ranch, a large feedlot in California where activists torched 14 tractors and cattle-hauling trailers – it still affects the animal agriculture industry negatively. It also provides those who wish to see animal agriculture abolished a voice that is getting louder all
the time.

And lawyers are listening. It is not only the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act being challenged. A bill in Iowa that is awaiting Senate approval, and that will see those who are hired under false pretences at animal operations in order to film “gotcha” videos punished, has been challenged by Drake University law professors. In an opinion piece in the Des Moines Register last summer, it is argued that these videos “shoot the messenger” and that state lawmakers must realize First-Amendment rights prevent the government from banning video depictions even if it doesn’t like their message. The authors question what the animal agriculture industry is hiding, and argue people have a right to know what goes on inside the facilities where their food is raised.

It’s not only about welfare; food safety is also at issue. In November, McDonalds dropped Sparboe Farms as an egg supplier in the U.S. after a video depicting abuse and unsanitary conditions was released.

It will be interesting to see how promoting the animal rights message plays out under U.S. law. But who really benefits? I suspect it will be the lawyers.