SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the when-does-activism-become-terrorism dept.
I was saddened to hear that two individuals who released fur animals and vandalized fur farms across America were busted: http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/fbi-arrests-activists-accused-of-releasing-mink/article_6c169b5d-dbbc-5dd1-adb0-534ee46af88b.html
But the arrest is sort of beside the point and there are two interesting tidbits in there. First and less interesting, is the ridiculous charge of terrorism under the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act" -- seriously, what they did is just plain old crime. Before you know it, going 10 over on the freeway will be considered an act of terrorism.
More intriguing, despite a lack of details on how they got busted, is this tidbit:
The indictment states that they covered their tracks by avoiding phones or logging into known online accounts and email. Instead, they used public Internet computers and encrypted email and cash for purchases while traveling. They would allegedly withdraw hundreds of dollars while back home in the San Francisco Bay Area before another trip.
The FBI states that they drafted communiques and posted them online to publicize their actions on websites associated with "animal rights extremists."
I'm going to guess automatic license plate readers were involved. Pure guess.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 27 2015, @11:35AM
"their right to do all they can to stop you."
THAT is precisely where you are wrong. They can write their representatives. They can organize petitions. They can organize boycotts. They can organize non-destructive, peaceful demonstrations. They can write editorials. They can maintain a blog. They can put bumper stickers on their cars. They can ask their local school board to teach children that the fur industry is evil. There's all kinds of things that they can REASONABLY do.
When they stoop to the level of vandalizing someone's home, they have crossed a line. They have become legitimate TARGETS of any homeowner defending his home. Ditto for businesses.
In much of the areas they were active in, a typical homeowner WOULD have shot them, if that homeowner had been around to catch them.
Someone may still shoot them. Ranchers and farmers have cars, and they can read maps. Someone may just take a trip out to Gay Bay, and blow both their dumb asses into eternity. And, the world will lose two more lowlifes.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Monday July 27 2015, @12:40PM
Look, it's one thing to hate on a few overly privileged hippie wannabe dick holes. But it's an entirely different thing to actually wish death upon someone. Especially if they didn't harm anyone. Just don't go there.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 27 2015, @01:03PM
"Someone may still shoot them." is a vastly different statement than "Someone should still shoot them" or "I hope someone shoots them" or "I think that I'll just ride out to Gay Bay and shoot them myself".
The intent of my post, was to point out that people have been killed for less, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that some rancher or farmer just MIGHT do so yet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @03:01PM
he didn't wich death merely suggested the possibility is very real, and not entirely in the past.
If it was my farm they attacked I would not only wish them death, i would regret not being their when they came to hand it to them personally
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @05:44PM
You sound like a rather violent individual. Even under outdated "eye-for-eye" justice, death as a punishment for property damage is not appropriate.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Monday July 27 2015, @03:17PM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 27 2015, @03:31PM
Actually, yes you CAN go "undercover". I'm waiting for someone to take that bullshit to court. As a generality, I think animal rights activists are a little nuts. But - on the other hand, SOME farm workers are very much nuts. These laws were passed to protect those nutcases.
I've lived in rural communities most of my life. I've worked on farms for part of my life. Most farmers have little if any objection to people taking pictures, or making films. Those farmers who produce for Tyson or the other big distributors might put restrictions in place to protect the livestock from possible infections, but they have nothing to hide.
Go ahead, go undercover, and film whatever the hell you like. If you dig up some real dirt, publish it. And, fight the prosecutors all the way to the Supreme Court. It's an unconstitutional law, plain and simple.
On the one hand, we are establishing the fact that cops are subject to being video recorded - and on the other hand, a special class of livestock handlers are being sheltered behind moronic laws.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday July 27 2015, @04:26PM
That's a fight that the videographer is likely to lose. The distinction between a public servant performing public service in a public space, and a private boss performing private acts on private property will give any court that wants it, a hook to throw the book at the documentarian.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 27 2015, @09:20PM
You're making a pretty good case for those who engage in bestiality. Documenting some guy planting his bone in a sheep might be against the law as well.
The worst thing that your documentarian can REASONABLY be charged with, is trespass. And, if he happens to be on the boss' payroll, well, it ain't trespass, now is it?
The single best way to avoid being charged with cruelty, is to treat the animals as humanely as possible. Yes, that goes for the slaughterhouse as well.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday July 27 2015, @11:04PM
I guess you failed to read the link I posted above about laws specifically criminalizing exposing animal abuse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @12:06AM
Bestiality isn't necessarily abuse. Dogs often just starting humping people; are the dogs being raped? The notion that animals cannot ever consent is merely a legal fiction; if that were true, every instance of non-human animals engaging in sexual intercourse would be rape. But it isn't. It's often quite consensual, and if you put yourself in a certain position, you could get them to want to start having sex with you. That doesn't mean it can't ever be abuse, just that it isn't necessarily abuse.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday July 28 2015, @05:32AM
I intentionally skipped the bestiality thing, and skipped the rest of your post as soon as you mentioned it. verbal goatse.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday July 28 2015, @02:30AM
The problem isn't the filming. It's that those doing the filming are not above staging incidents, and are not above abusing the animals (and in ways no actual farmer/rancher would tolerate) to stage those incidents.
If animal rightists need to torture animals in order to horrify the public into banning animal use, they will do so. To animal rights activists, the ends justify the means.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday July 28 2015, @05:33AM
Would you like some shrooms with your acid?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @06:28AM
It's funny how the original poster of the article has such an eloquent response. Typically, I could almost say