(If you don’t know what ALEC is, please see the links at the end of this diary.)
A statement made in 2003 when Texas passed the ALEC “Eco-Terrorism” legislation noted
… the language here is willfully vague, but the purpose is quite specific: to cripple the animal rights and environmental movements by kneecapping their right to dissent. …you can be labeled a terrorist if you leaflet a circus, protest an experimental lab, block a road to protect a forest, or potentially impede industry profits in any fashion. … the bill aims to criminalize donating money to any group smeared as terrorist, and requires that all guilty individuals supply their names, addresses, and a recent photograph to post on a public Internet database.
The ALEC “Eco-Terrorism” Legislation was drafted in 2003 and distributed to ALEC members in a publication named, “Animal and Ecological Terrorism in America’.
The “Model Legislation” is introduced at the end of the publication and is named “Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act (AETA)”.
In this publication ALEC lauds the efforts of ALEC members in getting the ALEC “Eco-Terrorism” “Model Legislation” introduced into their state by showing the following items.
MO SB 657
Title: Animal Research and Production Facilities
Sponsor: Klindt (ALEC member)
Same: (Based on ALEC principles)
OH SB 67
Title: Prohibit damaging or destroying crops,
timber, livestock or equipment.
Sponsor: Mumper (ALEC member), Wachtmann,
R. Gardner, DiDonato, Coughlin, Stivers, Austria,
Goodman, Carnes, Carey, Schuring, Armbruster
Same: (Based on ALEC principles)
NY SB 2996
Title: To amend the agriculture and markets law, in
relation to unlawful tampering with animal activities
Sponsor: Kuhl (ALEC member), Alesi, Larkin,
Maziarz, Mcgee, Mendez, Rath, Volker, Wright
Same: (Based on ALEC model)
OK SB 584
Status: Enacted April 10, 2003 (No amendments
were made)
Title: Oklahoma Farm Animal, Crop, and Research
Facilities Protection Act
Sponsor: Price (Former ALEC member), Gumm,
Covey
Same: (Very similar to ALEC bill)
OR S.B. 385
House Cmt. on Judiciary.
Title: An act relating to eco-sabotage.
Sponsor: Ferrioli (ALEC member), Messerle,
Krieger
Same: (Based on ALEC principles)
TX HB 433
Status: Legislature adjourned while bill was in
committee.
Title: Animal Rights And Ecological Terrorism
Sponsor: Allen (ALEC member)
Same: (Based on ALEC model)
Since that time it appears that ALEC has continued their efforts to get this legislation introduced into more state legislatures.
A recent article on Green Is the New Red made the following statement regarding “eco-terrorist” legislation that is being considered in Florida
Whether these special interests like it or not, distributing video and audio footage of factory farms, animal experimentation labs, and other facilities is protected by the First Amendment. If any investigators have trespassed or destroyed property, there are already laws on the books to charge them. To the proponents of these bills, though, these videos are not free speech, nor are they petty crime. As Florida state senator Jim Norman has said of undercover investigators: "It's almost like terrorism."
Another article in the Huffington Post also addressed current “eco-terrorist” legislation that is being considered in Minnesota and Iowa notes:
The language in the Iowa, Florida, and Minnesota bills is quite similar to provisions in model "eco-terrorism" legislation created by a corporate front group. The American Legislative Exchange Council is a non-profit funded by corporations, who contribute tens of thousands of dollars in exchange for having a say in drafting model bills. The bills are then introduced by state lawmakers across the country. ALEC's model bill is so broad that it includes undercover investigations, photography, videotaping and non-violent civil disobedience as "eco-terrorism."
The justifications that ALEC used in 2003 for the need for this “eco-terrorism” “Model Legislation” included
With a renewed focus on fighting terror both at home and abroad, ALEC's Criminal Justice Task Force voted overwhelmingly in favor of passage of the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act (AETA). The model bill enables law enforcement to penalize those who aid or assist terrorists or terrorist organizations. It recognizes animal rights and eco-terrorism as forms of domestic terrorism, increasing penalties for persons participating in acts of eco-terrorism and creating specific penalties for those who assist or finance these acts. (p. 12)
Additionally, AETA allows for the definition of eco-terror as domestic terror, without reference to the USA PATRIOT Act. In other words, the penalties and identification of those who commit eco-terror crimes are clarified without the overbearing tools provided under the USA PATRIOT Act. (p.15)
And to further frighten their ALEC members into submission the following statement ends the report:
“September 11 only strengthened my belief that
if we don’t act to stop our home-grown terrorists
they will follow in the footsteps of their more
deadly counterparts from abroad, escalating their
activities and moving beyond crimes that destroy
property to crimes that destroy human lives.”
-Nick Nichols, CEO Nichols-Dezenhall Communications
Management Group, Ltd
ALEC’s focus on “eco-terrorism” legislation has persisted for over eight years. While their efforts to get this “Model Legislation” introduced and passed have been unrelenting, it appears that the language of the “Model Legislation” has been changed to reflect a more sophisticated legislative body.
The original ALEC “Model Legislation” from 2003 included the following text as a definition of “eco-terrorism”:
(e) entering an animal or research facility to take pictures by photograph, video camera, or other means with the intent to commit criminal activities or defame the facility or its owner;
The text in the Minnesota legislation being introduced shows it re-worded as
Subd. 13. Record.
"Record" means any printed, inscribed, visual, or audio information that is placed or stored on a tangible medium, and that may be accessed in a perceivable form, including but not limited to any paper or electronic format.
The text in the Iowa legislation being introduced shows it re-worded as
17 NEW SUBSECTION .
11A.
“Record” means any printed, inscribed, visual, or audio information that is placed or stored on a tangible medium, and that may be accessed in a perceivable form, including but not limited to any paper or electronic format.
In addition, contained in the original ALEC “Model Legislation” from 2003 you will find the following paragraph that stipulates “Prohibited Acts” (the ALEC phrase)
2. Obstructing or impeding the use of an animal facility or the use of a natural resource without the
effective consent of the owner by:
(a) damaging or destroying an animal or research facility, or other
property in or on the premises;
(b) entering an animal or research facility that is at the time closed
to the public;
(c) remaining concealed in an animal or research facility with the intent
to commit an act prohibited by this chapter;
(d) entering an animal or research facility and committing or attempting
to commit an act prohibited by this chapter;
(e) entering an animal or research facility to take pictures by photograph,
video camera, or other means with the intent to commit criminal
activities or defame the facility or its owner;
(f) entering or remaining on the premises of an animal or research facility
if the person or organization:
(i) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or,
(ii) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
The text in the Minnesota legislation being introduced also titles Subdivision 1 as “Prohibited Acts” but it is re-worded slightly
Subdivision 1. Prohibited acts.
A person who acts without the consent of the owner of an animal facility to willfully do any of the following is guilty of animal facility interference:
(1) produce a record which reproduces an image or sound occurring at the animal facility if:
(i) the record is created by the person while at the animal facility; and
(ii) the record is a reproduction of a visual or audio experience occurring at the animal facility, including but not limited to a photographic or audio medium;
(2) possess or distribute a record which produces an image or sound occurring at the animal facility which was produced as provided in clause (1);
(3) exercise control over the animal facility including an animal maintained at the animal facility or other property kept at the animal facility, with intent to deprive the animal facility of the animal or property; and
(4) enter onto the animal facility, or remain at the animal facility, if the person has notice that the facility is not open to the public. A person has notice that an animal facility is not open to the public if the person is provided notice before entering onto the facility, or the person refuses to immediately leave the facility after being instructed to leave. The notice may be in the form of a written or verbal communication by the owner, a fence or other enclosure designed to exclude intruders or contain animals, or a sign posted that is reasonably likely to come to the attention of an intruder and which indicates that entry is forbidden.
The identical text is in the Iowa legislation being introduced with the title shown as “Animal facility interference” (which is the same language used in the 2003 Oregon legislation)
Sec. 9. NEW SECTION . 717A.2A Animal facility interference. 1
A person is guilty of animal facility interference, if the person acts without the consent of the owner of an animal facility to willfully do any of the following:
a. Produce a record which reproduces an image or sound occurring at the animal facility as follows:
(1) The record must be created by the person while at the animal facility.
(2) The record must be a reproduction of a visual or audio experience
occurring at the animal facility, including but not 24 limited to a
photographic or audio medium.
b. Possess or distribute a record which produces an image or sound
occurring at the animal facility which was produced as provided
in paragraph “a” .
c. Exercise control over the animal facility including an animal
maintained at the animal facility or other property kept at the animal
facility, with intent to deprive the animal facility of the animal or
property.
d. Enter onto the animal facility, or remain at the animal facility, if the
person has notice that the facility is not open to the public. A person
has notice that an animal facility is not open to the public if the
person is provided notice before entering onto the facility, or the person
refuses to immediately leave the facility after being informed to leave.
The notice may be in the form of a written or verbal communication by
the owner, a fence or other enclosure designed to exclude intruders or
contain animals, or a sign posted which is reasonably likely to come to
the attention of an intruder and which indicates that entry
is forbidden.
In the original ALEC “Model Legislation” from 2003 you will find the following paragraph, which is very direct in describing what I believe in the current legislation is referred to as "furtherance of that commission". Whoever wrote this in 2003 was definitely trying to get their point across, no gray areas with this language.
Participating in or supporting animal or ecological terrorism to include raising, soliciting, collecting or providing any person with material, financial support or other resources such as lodging, training, safe houses, false documentation or identification, communications, equipment or transportation that will be used in whole or in part, to encourage, plan, prepare, carry out, publicize, promote or aid an act of animal or ecological terrorism, the concealment of, or an escape from, an act of animal or ecological terrorism.
But the new "Model Legislation" does have gray areas. In my opinion the old "Model Legislation" language would not have been supported today, so the language of the updated "Model Legislation" has been sterilized and modernized, to be (what could be construed as) intentionally vague language that is difficult to interpret as to the specific intent of the section of the legislation.
The text in the Minnesota legislation being introduced shows the ALEC paragraph reworded in more general terms.
Subd. 3. Participant in conspiracy.
A person who participates in a conspiracy to commit the offense of animal facility tampering, and who acts in furtherance of that commission, is guilty of the same offense as the person convicted of committing the offense on or in the animal facility.
The identical text is in the Iowa legislation being introduced
A person who participates in a conspiracy to commit the offense of animal facility tampering, and who acts in furtherance of that commission, is guilty of the same offense as the person convicted of committing the offense on or in the animal facility.
While I am not actively involved in animal rights groups, I do contribute to them to help further their cause – which could be construed as “acting in furtherance of that commission”. The fact that my right to do so would be punishable by law – should they choose to do so – is revolting to me.
I have to put this out there.
I’m from Minnesota – we tell Iowa jokes in Minnesota (and I’m pretty sure Iowans have Minnesotan jokes they tell) – It’s no joke and no coincidence that Minnesota and Iowa are both trying to pass legislation that is identical and based on the original 2003 “Model Legislation” developed and distributed by ALEC.
I can state with a certain amount of confidence that there are very few citizens in Minnesota or Iowa that would consider either of these bills as priorities for our state. As was noted in the Green is Now Red article, the true purpose of this ALEC “Model Legislation” is “corporate profits.”.
This appears to be another example of ALEC’s “free-market” philosophy and need for appeasing corporate sponsors / partners of ALEC. Corporations who help our state legislators draft “Model Legislation” for introduction into our states. The webpage of the Iowa legislation includes a list of lobbyists associated with the Iowa legislation – Monsanto is lobbying for passage of this bill and they are a documented corporate sponsor / private sector member of ALEC.
If we go back to the article that was noted above the fold:
...the language here is willfully vague, but the purpose is quite specific: to cripple the animal rights and environmental movements by kneecapping their right to dissent. …you can be labeled a terrorist if you leaflet a circus, protest an experimental lab, block a road to protect a forest, or potentially impede industry profits in any fashion. … the bill aims to criminalize donating money to any group smeared as terrorist,
it is evident that while ALEC has refined the language of the “Eco-Terrorist” “Model legislation” introduced to ALEC members in 2003, the intent and purpose remains the same.
BTW: The end result of these types of legislation leads to incarceration of eco-terrorists. If you want to read about ALEC’s involvement in the prison systems I suggest you read the writings by Kossack Bob Sloan.
If you don’t know what ALEC is – please read this, or this, or this, or this, or this.
