Practical Issues > "To Do" Index > Activism
Where's the legal line drawn in animal-rights activism?

WASHINGTON - A federal courthouse in Boston and a ranch in
California's San Joaquin Valley present competing faces of the animal
rights movement.

One side is peaceful. The other, decidedly, is not. Both can feel the
weight of the law and the sting of being called a terrorist.
Meeropol, who's with the New York-based Center for Constitutional
Rights, is representing Minneapolis resident Sarahjane Blum and four
other activists in the lawsuit, filed Dec. 15. It argues that the 2006
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act violates the First Amendment rights of
those who want to protest how animals are treated.

Blum, for one, founded, whose advocacy efforts
helped persuade the California legislature in 2004 to ban traditional
foie gras production. The ban, which blocks the force-feeding of ducks
"for the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size,"
takes effect in July.
Farm groups insist that animal-rights groups must help find the perpetrators.

"If they sit by silently while animal rightists attack law-abiding
businesses, they are passively endorsing domestic terrorism," Paul
Wenger, the president of the California Farm Bureau Federation, said
this week in a statement.

full story:

Fair Use Notice and Disclaimer
Send questions or comments about this web site to Ann Berlin,