AETA's CONSTITUTIONALITY CHALLENGED IN COURT

[Guest guest]

Federal judge weighs legal challenge to animal rights anti-terrorism lawBy Howard MintzhmintzPosted: 07/13/2009 04:23:11 PM PDTUpdated: 07/14/2009 03:41:30 AM PDTA

federal judge in San Jose on Monday sent mixed signals over the fate of

a new law designed to target violent animal-rights protests, indicating

he will rule later in the nation's first direct legal challenge to

Congress' attempt to protect animal researchers and scientists from

serious safety threats.During an hourlong hearing, U.S. District

Judge Ronald Whyte suggested that the 2006 Animal Enterprise Terrorism

Act may be legally vulnerable, but he also left doubts about whether

the current lawsuit is the right path to take on the law in its

entirety.Federal prosecutors invoked the law for the first time

earlier this year, indicting four activists accused of threats and

vandalism against University of California medical researchers in Santa

Cruz and Berkeley.Lawyers for the defendants, backed by civil

liberties groups, argue that the animal terrorism law is

unconstitutional. They say it's too broad, vague and tramples on the

free speech rights of animal rights advocates who protest and boycott

for their cause. In moving to dismiss the indictment, they maintain the

law targets animal rights groups so broadly that it would criminalize a

boycott or protest outside a fur store.At one point, Whyte asked

attorneys for the activists: "Essentially, your position is that if

picketing or boycotting is particularly effective, it's going to be a

violation of the statute?"Attorney Kali Grech told the judge the law is even more sweeping than that."This is clearly the regulation of ideas,'' she said.Justice

Department attorneys defend the law, saying it is constitutional and

punishes violent and threatening conduct, not speech. The law makes it

a crime to interfere with an "animal enterprise" through threats that

put someone in fear of death or serious injury.Assistant U.S.

Attorney Elise Becker told Whyte that the allegations of violence

against the four activists go far beyond boycotting a business or

protesting for animal rights."The Supreme Court has consistently found that threats are not protected speech," Becker said.Congress

enacted the legislation, which was pushed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein,

D-Calif., in the wake of a number of violent protests at California

research facilities.Federal prosecutors in March unveiled an

indictment charging Joseph Buddenberg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope and

Adriana Stumpo, alleging they were responsible for a series of

threatening protests against Bay Area researchers and their families.The defendants have pleaded not guilty to the charges.~End~Contact Howard Mintz at 408-286-0236