Phase Four - Feedback welcomed

P1 - The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is vague

P2 – It allows for excessive penalization

P3 – Its use of the work “terrorism” is inconsistent with legal and political norms

C1 – The AETA is delegitimized by its excesses and may be unconstitutional

P1 –The AETA is vague – Vagueness or broad constructions of legal language can be an asset when interpreting intent in a variety of contexts, but the ability of dissidents to understand the limitations of their constitutionally protected speech and the consequences when civil disobedience is employed is not one of them. The classification of non-violent physical obstruction or actions that may result in the loss of revenue without an injury to property or person could foreseeably be adapted to virtually all forms of traditional and non-traditional political protest. This would unjustly suppress protected forms of speech.

P2 – Excessive penalization – The 2006 law duplicates the 1992 Animal Enterprise Protection Act, whose provisions were enough to arrest, for example, activists on “animal enterprise terrorism” charges for running a website. The 1992 bill was, despite obvious effectiveness such as the arrest just mentioned, was claimed to be ineffectual – but the crimes enumerated in the 2006 legislation are already illegal acts, which could potentially lead to a compounding of charges under multiple statues.

P3 – Inconsistent use of term “terrorism” – The vast spectrum of expression and tactics that the language allows for prosecution and the choice of the term “terrorism” in the title of the bill provides for a diverse application of specific, but more relevantly politically and emotively charged word that sets a confusing and inappropriate standard. Even in its most “radical” manifestation, animal and environmental activism has ceased to go beyond politically motivated property destruction, in which great care is taken to ensure that no human and animal lives are harmed. This clearly evident principle sets these activists distinctly apart tactically, technically, and ideologically from the more general accepted domestic and international norms defining terrorism.