Soup forgot his password Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 From the NYT article During the three-week trial, defense lawyers acknowledged that a Web site run by Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty posted home addresses and other personal information about animal researchers and others. But the activists said they were simply trying to shame their targets into dissociating themselves from the company, Huntingdon Life Sciences, and they disavowed any involvement with the vandalism, death threats, computer hacking and pipe bombs against those on the Web site. Although federal prosecutors presented no evidence that the defendants directly participated in the vandalism and violence, they showed jurors that members of the group made speeches and Web postings from 2000 to 2004 that celebrated the violence and repeatedly used the word "we" to claim credit for it. Keep in mind that this is coming out of a post 9/11 america where we were directly endangered by people who advocated violence over mass-media. Prosecutors also produced telephone records indicating that the president of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, Kevin Kjonaas, called a man charged with bombing a California biotech lab shortly after the explosion. I knew there was more to this than just a website ran by some humanitarians against dogs being used for scientific research. And you wonder why he has his lawyer present during the interview. While the bill provides an exemption for “lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise,” that exemption applies only to claims of economic “disruption” and not claims of economic “damage.” It also does not necessarily cover the entire range of expression protected by the First Amendment, which covers more than a lawful “reaction” to a “disclosure of information.” Ordinary persons would not understand which activities are prohibited and which are lawful. In other words, the difference would be what Occupy Wallstreet did to the Port of Oakland. It would provide expemption to people who protest on private property and blockade people from doing their work, but that same exemption doesnt apply to damage or loss of property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.