Results

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.

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.

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.”