The Quiet Death of Free Speech

Last week's decision by the United States Supreme Court, affirming the rights of the anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church to spew hatred at military funerals, was greeted as a victory for free speech by nearly everyone across the political spectrum.

That celebration turned out to be short-lived and wholly premature.

On March 7, 2011, the same justices decided to let a far more important free speech case die a quiet, unseen death by refusing to hear it. You wouldn't know this from the news -- members of the major media were too busy with Charlie Sheen, one supposes. Indeed, the only reporter to cover the event was courageous independent journalist Will Potter.

The case in question: the United States of America vs. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, Inc. et al, where six defendants and a non-profit corporation were convicted of animal enterprise terrorism for running a protest campaign against the largest animal testing laboratory in the world, Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), commencing in 2001. This was no case of mere philosophical or abstract outrage -- HLS had been fined $50,000 by the USDA for multiple violations of the Animal Welfare Act for cruelty to animals in its New Jersey facility in 1998.

Even though the SHAC defendants did nothing but call for and participate in legal protests against the company and anyone doing business with them, sporadic instances of vandalism by unknown persons against some of the protest targets caused the six activists spearheading the campaign against HLS to be charged with inciting "terrorism." All were found guilty in a secret and speedy 2006 trial from which all media were barred.

If this all sounds unbelievable, it should. But in our country, special exemptions to free speech have been carved to protect corporations that use animals. These exemptions include the right to be shielded from protests and boycotts through the federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which makes any interference with the operation of an animal enterprise that causes sufficient financial losses an act of terrorism. In introducing the law, its sponsors assured members of Congress that it would never be used to target mere speech. Of course, that is exactly what it is being used for.

These are not only federal legal matters. In California, calling for home protests against specific animal researchers is illegal since 2008. In Florida, a law pending this year would make it a felony to photograph or videotape "legitimate agriculture operations" without the owner's consent.

Why?

Is it because activist campaigns that expose cruelty to animals behind carefully closed doors tend to be very effective? The SHAC protests against HLS and its affiliates caused some of the world's largest corporations to sever ties to the company, almost bankrupting the multinational giant. One wonders if without such dramatic results, any prosecution would've taken place at all.

On March 7, by denying to hear the appeal in the SHAC case, the Supreme Court effectively affirmed the 2006 verdict, that engaging in legal, First Amendment-protected activity, when it affects the bottom lines of major corporations, is now not only illegal, but a certified act of terrorism.

Considering that the Supreme Court previously ruled that all corporate "persons," unlike real persons, are entitled to make whatever unlimited monetary contributions they wish to political candidates, perhaps we should not have been surprised.

But make no mistake. The Court's seeming affirmations of free speech, applied to the bigotry and hate-mongering of pastor Phelps were a mere comforting illusion. Real history, as they say, is made at night.

Mikko Alanne is a screenwriter and documentary filmmaker currently producing a film about the SHAC case.

 

 

 

Comments

[CherylBW]

09:27 PM on 03/16/2011

Thanks to Mikko Alanne and Will Potter for covering this. Media outlets have failed the people on this issue, but I don't fault just corporate mainstream media. There is an odd disconnect between many progressives as well as progressive news/opinion sites who would claim to support the rights of animal rights activists if asked, but that's about it. This very important article garnered 448 shares and 10 comments. One of countless articles here on HuffPo on the Supreme Court decision regarding Westboro received 3400 shares and 5100 comments. What's wrong with this picture?

[Alisonbull]

10:39 AM on 03/10/2011

America belongs to big corporations now. What can a person do? I ask that seriously, because it feels like forces are constantly against an average person. What can a person in NJ do about the Iowa and Florida bills?

[Rory Freedman]

02:55 AM on 03/10/2011

What terrifying times we are facing when activists are labeled terrorists and politicians are aiming to selectively censure free speech. Thank you Mikko, Will Potter, SHAC-tivists, and everyone else who refuses to go quietly.

[cetude]

12:10 AM on 03/10/2011

Did you know if they make it illegal for anybody to video record or photograph a farm it will allow farmers to poison the public feeding our children DOWNER cows, and will allow them to use banned or illegal chemicals or antibiotics for the livestock. Without photographs or video-there is no evidence. The farmers will have unlimited power what they can do. If farmers sell to the public, don't we have a RIGHT to know what goes in our food?

[cetude]

12:07 AM on 03/10/2011

Westboro Baptist Church says America is doomed. I have to agree with this considering the Supreme Court legalized military funeral protests, yet a peaceful and lawful campaign against vivisection - just exposing the truth - is terrorism. Notice the ACLU hasn't one word to say about this.

[Mikko Alanne]

04:20 PM on 03/09/2011

Just to add this: Echoing the Florida effort to hinder undercover investigations with selective criminalization, lawmakers in Iowa are aiming to outlaw providing false information to gain employment at a factory farm. Rep. Brian Quirk commented: “I think the intent of the bill is spot on. These people need to be dealt with. They’re terrorists and this is wrong.” You can read more here: http://www.easterniowagovernment.com/2011/03/02/bill-targets-efforts-to-disparage-agricultures-image/

[Teresa DAmico]

03:45 PM on 03/09/2011

Thank you SO much for covering this decision that, as you point out, no one else is doing. I don't think people believe me when I try and explain what happened to the SHAC 7 and what AETA means. It is an abomination that a targeted group of people defending the earth and non-human animals have been (quietly in the dark of night) denied their first amendment rights and the media doesn't even seem to want to know, let along care, about it. Our government is in the pockets of agricultural and pharmaceutical giants and that is the ONLY reason to deny this appeal.

[Dana Dallabetta]

03:43 PM on 03/09/2011

Thanks you for this article.

" in our country, special exemptions to free speech have been carved to protect corporations that use animals".

People need to know the truth about "Free Speech" and what is really happening in this country,

[jeph nor]

01:28 PM on 03/09/2011

This is a topic that liberals should care about, but you will never hear it mentioned on liberal talk shows, and our "liberal" president is part of the problem. Whether or not you agree with these people, you have to admit that this is messed up. Some of them have even been sent to federal CMUs. The government is trying these tactics out on unpopular movements that effect commerce first, and it is working. Between this and making the filming of law enforcement a felony, where do you think this nation is going?

[Andy Stepanian]

12:59 PM on 03/09/2011

Thank you, Mikko.

I know I wont let speech die, nor will I ever go quietly.

[Ari Solomon]

12:56 PM on 03/09/2011

Thank you for highlighting this. All activists should take note.