Business Net
Huntingdon Life Sciences' Customer Names Will Not Be Released, Judge Rules
By Jim Edwards
Sep 29, 2009
http://industry.bnet.com/pharma/10004489...ed-judge-rules/

A federal court ruling ordering the release of more than 1,000 pages
of records on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s investigation of
Huntingdon Life Sciences will not reveal the names of companies doing
business with HLS.

Drug companies — such as Novartis and its Sandoz generics unit — will
breathe a sigh of relief at that news. Animal rights activists
recently burned down Novartis CEO Daniel Vasella’s country house,
stole his mother’s ashes and vandalized his family grave in protest at
Novartis’ past association with HLS. HLS is a contract testing lab
where drug companies get studies done on animals.

Novartis has insisted that it no longer uses HLS, but activists
believe the company still does business there. HLS has branches in
Princeton, N.J., and the U.K. Activists placed a butane gas can bomb
on the premises of a Novartis office on Sept. 22 (click to enlarge),
and making threatening phonecalls to Novartis employees in the middle
of the night.

Any ruling requiring USDA documents to be released on HLS ran the risk
of naming HLS’s customers. But the ruling — in a Freedom of
Information Act case filed by In Defense of Animals – will keep HLS
client names redacted. It states that IDA agreed not to ask for those
names:

IDA “agreed to forgo test protocols and protocol amendments; animal
tracking and assessment records; the identification of any compound or
product; and the identity of any customer of HLS; and dosing charts.”

The IDA wants the records because it believes veterinary care at the
labs has been inadequate.

And thanks to animal testing, ARA groups can protest and waste various courts time an average of 21.4 YEARS longer. What a bunch of knuckleheads.

NOTE: A copy of the Appellate Court’s ruling can be viewed here:
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/wp-content/Images/shac-appeal-opinion.pdf NJ.comFederal court upholds convictions of animal-rights activists that threatened Somerset County lab By The Associated Press October 15, 2009, 8:44AM
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/10/federal_court_upholds_convicti.html


FRANKLIN -- A federal appeals court has upheld the convictions of six animal-rights activists in a New Jersey harassment case. The six members of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty were convicted in2006 of using their Web site to incite threats and vandalism against employees of a company that tests products on animals, Huntingdon Life Science in Franklin Township, Somerset County. The group posted home addresses and other information about the workers on the site. Each activist was sentenced to six years in prison. Three remain in federal custody. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled there was enough evidence to convict them of violating the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The trial was believed to be the first to use the statute, which was enacted in 1992.

NJ.comConvictions of animal rights activists upheld By For The Times October 14, 2009, 9:20PMhttp://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2009/10/convictions_of_animal_rights_a.html A federal appeals court Wednesday upheld the convictions of six activists, including a Hamilton resident, found guilty of using their internet website to incite threats and harassment against a company that tests products on animals. Employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences found themselves besieged with attacks by animal rights activists after the postings. One Montgomery woman, Carol Auletta, who worked at the company’s offices in Franklin Township, had testified the harassment continued for at least a year,from 2002 to 2003, at her home and in downtown Princeton Borough. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia yesterday found that the young adults — acting under the name Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) — conspired to commit animal enterprise terrorism and interstate stalking in their campaign against Huntingdon. The company uses animals to test drugs and consumer products at itslabs in Franklin, Somerset County and in England. Employees of the company described being threatened and screamed at through bullhorns by activists who showed up at their homes and invaded their offices. Auletta, a senior scientist at Huntingdon at the time, said her neighbors were told she was a mentally ill killer of animals, and was derided as a “hideous monster” and a “grotesque beast” in SHAC’s online postings that included her home address, phone number and photograph. In affirming the 2006 guilty verdict of the SHAC members, the appeals panel rejected arguments that there was insufficient evidence to convict them of violating the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a 2002law to protect companies doing animal research. “Defendants acted for the purpose of causing physical disruption to Huntingdon and to intentionally damage or cause the loss of Huntingdon’s property, the panel decided.“While there was no direct evidence that the defendants expressly agreed to participate in the conspiracy and further its unlawful goals, there is ample circumstantial evidence from which the jury could have inferred their agreement to do so,” it ruled. The court also rejected the appellants’ arguments that the AEPA violates the First Amendment and that the judge’s instructions to the trial jury were flawed.U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman lauded the decision. Robert Obler, a Lawrence attorney representing former Hamilton resident Darius Fulmer, said the ruling will be appealed. “I’m fairly sure we will wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said.“We knew all along we would.” Convicted in a 2006 trial were Fullmer, Conroy, Joshua Harper of Seattle, Andrew Stepanian of Huntington, N.Y., and Lauren Gazzola and Kevin Kjonaas, who lived with Conroy in Pinole, Calif. They were sentenced from one to six years in prison. Conroy, Gazzola and Kjonaas remain behind bars.

This rather long and windy piece shows just how deceptive and unwilling the ARA are in understanding they have broken laws that SOCIETY wants in order to maintain our human family. The arrogance of the ALF types who deliberately try to use fascist control over folks in Medical Research is unwanted & works outside the boundaries of compassion for OUR OWN species. That factor is, quite sad.


Green is the New Red (Blog)
Appellate Court: Encouraging Civil Disobedience is Not Protected Speech
Oct 14th, 2009 by Will Potter
http://www.greenisthenewred or the attempt at killing our right to freedom from hypocrites that would attack people while they are doing perfectly legal and valuable jobs in the human society.com

The conviction of the SHAC 7–animal rights activists hit with
“terrorism” charges for publishing a website and vocally,
unapologetically supporting direct action–has 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.”

As a brief introduction: The “SHAC 7” of Stop Huntingdon Animal
Cruelty ran an effective campaign that had the sole purpose of putting
Huntingdon Life Sciences, a notorious animal testing company, out of
business. The campaign pressured corporations to sever ties with the
lab. The SHAC 7 were never accused of breaking windows or releasing
animals from labs, but they supported those who did. They published a
website which posted news of both legal and illegal tactics, and
supported all of it. The website had also posted names and addresses
of individuals connected to the corporations targeted.

The ruling was issued today and, although there are many aspects that
deserve attention, I want to walk through what I think are by far the
most dangerous and troubling implications of this ruling–those related
to the First Amendment:

Supporting and facilitating non-violent civil disobedience is not
protected speech.

As part of their campaign, SHAC supporters were emailed about
“electronic civil disobedience.” The email and message board posts
included instructions on how electronically “sit in” on corporate web
sites through emails, faxes and phone calls.

Now, one of the benchmarks in First Amendment law is what is called
the Brandenburg standard. It holds that even the most controversial
and inflammatory speech is protected as long as it not likely to
incite “imminent and lawless action.” That is a very high threshold.
In this court ruling—which, to the best of my knowledge and the
attorneys I have spoken with is the first of its kind—the written word
can be construed as promoting, or resulting in, imminent and lawless
action.

To put it more plainly: Vocally supporting civil disobedience,
explaining what it involves, and encouraging/facilitating people to
take part is not protected speech.

This is so important let me say it again, another way: People who
write about civil disobedience and encourage people to take part can
be found convicted of a crime even if they do not take part in the
civil disobedience.

This has dangerous implications far beyond this case. For instance, I
wrote about the recent call by mainstream environmental groups for
massive non-violent civil disobedience in defense of the environment.
Under this reasoning, organizers of that event who published a website
aren’t protected by the First Amendment.

[UPDATE: One person had this question, so others might as well: I am
not at all saying that simply endorsing civil disobedience is now not
protected speech. However, doing so and also facilitating civil
disobedience is what the court ruled is not protected. So in the
example above, the organizers promoted civil disobedience, encouraged
it, set up a website telling people where to go and when, and there
were people involved to specifically support those arrested. I think
there is a very real danger of that type of conduct being affected by
the reasoning presented in this ruling. That is what I had meant by
the headline and preceding points.]

Fiery rhetoric is a “true threat” when illegal conduct has taken place
in the same campaign.

Another measurement of whether speech is protected by the First
Amendment is whether it is a true threat. Throughout the appellate
court ruling, the court argued that SHAC’s speech did, in fact,
constitute a true threat.

SHAC pressured corporations to divest and sever ties with HLS and
“used past incidents to instill fear in future targets” (by
publicizing illegal conduct, supporting that conduct). “In this
regard, their actions meet the standard of a “true threat” as
articulated in Watts, because viewed in context, the speeches,
protests, and web postings, were all tools to further their effort.”

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 second problem is that no action by animal rights or environmental
activists in the United States has ever resulted in physical injury or
death. Not one. That’s by the admission of the FBI and DHS, along with
groups that track animal rights crimes, like the Southern Poverty Law
Center. It defies logic how even the most outlandish rhetoric can be
construed as a “true threat” that places someone in reasonable fear of
physical violence, when the movement has never engaged in physical
violence.

The Animal Enterprise Protection Act and “animal enterprise terrorism”
charges can be applied to First Amendment activity.

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 SHAC–the 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 encryption–Kjonaas 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.

This Ruling is Bigger than the SHAC 7

This ruling is disappointing, to put it mildly, for the SHAC 7
defendants still behind bars. They will serve the remainder of their
sentence in prison and, if this appellate court decision stands, be
forever marked as “terrorists.”

But this case is much bigger than the SHAC 7, and it is bigger than
the animal rights movement. The AETA 4 are facing terrorism charges
for chalking slogans and protesting with masks. Climate groups are
organizing massive civil disobedience campaigns. These movements
continue to grow, and so does the crackdown against them.

This is critical time in American history. Corporations, working
alongside ambitious prosecutors, are radically expanding cultural and
legal conceptions of “terrorism” in order to push a political agenda.
Mainstream animal and environmental groups, the press, civil liberties
groups, they have all largely remained silent on this historic case.
As a result, this appellate court has issued its sweeping ruling with
impunity.

It is all too easy to weaken the First Amendment when it comes to the
rights of “radicals” and “extremists.” It is even easier when no one
is paying attention.