AETA v. AEPA: a side-by-side comparison
the AEPA said: |
the AETA says: |
Impact: |
| you must have the “purpose of causing physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise” which “intentionally damages or causes the loss of any property (including animals or records) used by the animal enterprise, or conspires to do so.” |
you must have “the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise” “in connection with such purpose — which
(A) intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise; (B) intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation; (C) conspires or attempts to do so.” |
1. AETA protects “tertiary targets”:supporters of the bill said that this was a loophole that needed to be closed in the AEPA and often mention the SHAC7 as reason to do so; the SHAC7 were prosecuted under the AEPA for running a website, though, so the loophole doesn’t really need to be closed; instead, this limits the types of campaign strategies that can be used by activist groups. Anti-apartheid activists used “tertiary targeting” in their divestment campaigns; under this law “tertiary targeting” is considered “terrorism.”
2. AETA includes “reasonable fear,” which could be used to explain any advocacy: It’s impossible to define “reasonable fear,” especially when industry groups are using their resources to make the public afraid of non-violent activists. Industry groups have taken out full-page ads in newspapers and called major children’s motion pictures, “soft core eco-terrorism for kids.” This language could be used to |
| Individuals who cause less than $10,000 in economic damage could be imprisoned for up to 6 months, and someone who causes more than $10,000 in economic damage could be imprisoned up to 3 years. | (2) a fine under this title or imprisonment not more than 1 year, or both, if the offense does not instill in another the reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death and —(A) the offense results in no economic damage or bodily injury; or
(B) the offense results in economic damage that does not exceed $10,000. The penalties increase in fines and imprisonment time based on how much economic damage was done to the animal enterprise. |
AETA doesn’t stop “violence”–it only protects corporate profits: increases in imprisonment and fines are centered around how much economic damage was done; this bill, then, is not about stopping “violence” because violence hasn’t taken place. It’s about classifying “non-violent physical obstruction,” crimes that do not “instill in another the reasonable fear of serious bodily injury,” and property crimes as “terrorism,” in order to recoup corporate losses and demonize and silence dissent. |
