On November 27, 2006, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) was signed into law. The legislation was designed to provide additional protection to animal researchers and connected companies by expanding upon the existing Animal Enterprise Protection Act that was passed in 1992. Specifically, the AETA was formed to address varying tactics used by animal rights extremists that were not included in the 1992 legislation.
Key provisions of the AETA
• The AETA expands offenses covered under federal law to include threats, harassment, and other intimidation tactics that do not “physically disrupt” an animal enterprise but instead attempt to provoke fear among employees. Examples of such acts include making false bomb threats and posting home telephone numbers of company workers on the Internet.
• The legislation covers secondary and tertiary targets, or those companies who are affiliated or do business with animal enterprises. The act also covers individual employees.
• The act includes graded penalties, including life imprisonment, that are based on the level of financial damage or bodily injury sustained from an act carried out by an animal rights extremist.
• The law provides federal law enforcement officials additional powers to launch investigations and prosecute extremists who are using illegal tactics.
• The legislation includes clarification that any legitimate protest activities protected by the First Amendment are exempt from prosecution.
Long-term effects of the AETA
The AETA addresses many important issues not included in earlier legislation. However, more robust enforcement may produce more extremists and possibly more attacks. Previous attempts to curtail their activities provoked activists to carry out additional attacks. In September 2006, following the sentencing of two members of the Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty campaign (SHAC) for their efforts to shut down Huntington Life Sciences, an anonymous group of animal rights extremists carried out a retaliatory attack for the, “unfair conviction” of the activists. A spokeswoman for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) later stated that the incident was an indication that the underground animal rights movement intended to increase its efforts. She stated that despite the attempt by the government to, “send a message” to activists by prosecuting several extremists, animal activists would use the case as motivation to carry out additional undercover attacks in order to further their cause.
Following the passage of the AETA, additional members of the animal rights movement indicated that the new act would likely provoke further underground activity. Activists who previously used only legal tactics were concerned that they would face prosecution by the government due to the new measures, and thereby were considering more militant actions to be carried out underground, as little incentive remained to stay “above ground” and face detection by officials.
As direct actions carried out by animal rights extremists have continued to grow in severity and sophistication in recent years, it is unlikely that members of the movement will be deterred by the measures included in the AETA. Animal rights extremists will continue targeting various animal enterprises and affiliated companies due to the large number of activists who are willing to risk potential repercussions in the name of the larger animal rights movement.
