US courts: civil disobedience = terrorism

Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:43 am

PostSun Jan 10, 2010 4:18 am » by Strider2

excerpts - link to full story below...

The conviction of the SHAC 7animal rights activists hit with "terrorism" charges for publishing a website and vocally, unapologetically supporting direct actionhas been upheld by a U.S. appellate court. It is a landmark free speech ruling that lowers the threshold of what types of conduct are protected by the First Amendment, and upholds a law that is so broad that it targets civil disobedience as "terrorism."

The court's reasoning goes something like this: SHAC wants to close HLS, SHAC supports legal and illegal activity, therefore when SHAC targets a new corporation there is a true threat that the company will be the victim of illegal activity. So SHAC's speech is not protected.

There are two huge problems with this. The first is that social movements throughout history have had both legal and illegal components. I have interviewed countless activists who only take part in legal protest, but vocally and unequivocally support illegal tactics, and recognize their role in the broader movement. The court argues that it doesn't matter if you are not breaking the law; if you support illegal tactics, note their efficacy, and believe they play a role in the broader movement and your own campaigning, it is tantamount to a "true threat."

The court ruled that the defendants were guilty of "conspiracy" to commit animal enterprise terrorism because of:

Speech--Josh Harper "wrote editorials and gave speeches praising militant tactics and direct action."
Running a website--Jake Conroy "designed and maintained multiple websites affiliated with SHACthe primary tools of the campaign against Huntingdon."
Protest--Andy Stepanian told Kevin Kjonaas "that he could not explain over an unprotected phone line what protest activity he had planned for the following weeks." (The court argues that this implied illegal activity).
Computer encryptionKjonaas and Gazzola used "encryption devices and programs to wipe their computer hard drives" and protect their email. "While alone this evidence is not enough to demonstrate agreement, when viewed in context, it is circumstantial evidence of their agreement to participate in illegal activity," the court said. To most people, it is evidence of their intent to protect their privacy from FBI spying.

full article here: ... 6-549.html

Posts: 1644
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 12:31 am

PostSun Jan 10, 2010 8:21 am » by Heinousone

If that is for real then that is some fucked up shit.

User avatar
Posts: 3733
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:32 pm

PostTue Jan 12, 2010 3:30 pm » by Illuminated

^ well friend, its looks very 'for real' and yes it is verrrry fkd up shit.

so is this

at some point even the least tinfoil person out there won't be able to deny it to themselves any longer; we're in a corporatist oligarchy!! :nwo:
Restoring Sanity and or Keeping Fear Alive! :wink:


  • Related topics
    Last post