Why You Should Support The Shac7

[Porn-Dude]

On March 3rd, seven activists involved with the website shacamerica.net (now shut down by the authorities) became the first to be convicted under the Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. These activists were involved in a campaign against Huntington Life Sciences, a UK-based contract animal-research company (with a lab in New Jersey) which kills an approximated 180,000 animals every year in the name of research, mainly for pharmaceutical companies (nearly every major one), but also including Dow Chemical and Monsanto.

During the three-week trial before U.S. District Judge Anne Thompson, jurors heard that defendants urged sympathizers to harass Huntingdon employees, vandalize their cars and publish the names, addresses and phone numbers of their families on a Web site.

SHAC members also used their Web site in an attempt to stop other companies from doing business with Huntingdon in the hope that if they succeeded, Huntingdon itself would be unable to operate.

Their tactics included sending thousands of e-mails to the targeted companies to disrupt their computers, and sending “black faxes” to prevent fax machines from operating.

(Reuters news story)

Some may not care for these tactics (though I would not count myself in that camp), but the fact is that these activists are not accused of performing any of these acts - merely suggesting them. And this is now terrorism. The fact is, the SHAC activists were getting a little too effective for the comfort of the animal industries, so the state intervened. Make no mistake, this is the leak before the flood. If the authorities can get away with this, it’s one more blow against the inherent right of citizens to speak, write, and act against injustice. This case should truly be of concern to all activists.

This also takes place in a larger context of animal rights and environmental activism coming to the forefront of the FBI’s domestic terrorist threats list, despite the fact that there are no reported cases of human deaths resulting from animal or environmental activism in North America. (See last month’s story in the NewStandard for more context.)

More reading: Free the SHAC7 website, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty website, Inside HLS website (includes articles discussing the scientific value of the experiments conducted at HLS). I'll also suggest the Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine site.

Ok that's all for now I hope you'll find some of this information disturbing and I hope it pisses a few of you off. I for one am sick and tired of seeing our rights and freedoms slowly taken away from us and it sickens me everytime I see efforts to change the shitty world we live in stiffled.

“Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.”

[MortifiedPenguins]

So Now it's okay to place people's personal Information on the Website without there consent and meaning for damage to them.

[Imperator]

At 3/24/06 06:58 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote: So Now it's okay to place people's personal Information on the Website without there consent and meaning for damage to them.

Not last time I checked. It still counts as slander (er....libel?....) if you can prove it's damaging to your reputation......I think.......

In any case, it sounds like the Judge made a good call. Here's why;

During the three-week trial before U.S. District Judge Anne Thompson, jurors heard that defendants urged sympathizers to harass Huntingdon employees, vandalize their cars and publish the names, addresses and phone numbers of their families on a Web site.

SHAC members also used their Web site in an attempt to stop other companies from doing business with Huntingdon in the hope that if they succeeded, Huntingdon itself would be unable to operate.

Their tactics included sending thousands of e-mails to the targeted companies to disrupt their computers, and sending "black faxes" to prevent fax machines from operating.

This shows that they were encouraging others to do this. They themselves may not have actively engaged in the activities, but that doesn't negate their responsibilites. Correct me if I'm wrong, but It's STILL first degree murder if you tell someone to kill someone else, even if you didn't pull the trigger yourself.....

Defense attorneys argued that the defendants were exercising their constitutional rights of free speech and had not themselves committed the acts advocated by their Web site

Free speech, maybe. The Judge probably thought that this is about the same as yelling "fire" in crowded movie theaters. Only through the internet. Probably a good judgement, but it IS a bit tricky. I do agree with the judge and jury though, sounds like they were inciting people. Probably shouldn't be classified as "terrorism", but that just means our definition of "terrorism" is still too wide. Another false positive.......

[SolInvictus]

leak before the flood? i doubt it, i think its proper action against people who care for the lives of animals over those of humans.

[Dracul3S]

At 3/25/06 03:30 AM, mofomojo wrote: Animals do not have a soul, no intelligence equals no importants.

Wrong! Some Animals (dolphins and whales for example) can recognize themselfs, communicate and make plans, so where exact can you see a truly mattering difference. Biologists said that brought up examples do have feelings like pity, friendship, love and hate. Now many people go for but only humans make tools, wrong again, even stupid birds can make tools and use them, using of tools does not set us apart in any way! We just care more for our kind, simply because they are our kind.