(cut and pasted from the shear anarchist).
The Supreme Court announced a few days will not review the case of the SHAC 7, a notable example or case involving the First Amendment in which a group of activists for the rights of animals were condemned as "terrorists" to bring forward a controversial website. 
The SHAC 7 campaign had nothing to do with Anthrax, bombs, or a plan to hijack a plane. They were in charge of maintaining a website. On that page published news about the campaign (legal actions like protests and illegal actions, like taking laboratory animals) and certainly supporters. therefore faced a number of charges of conspiracy, including conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act and to commit "terrorism related to padding for the animals."
The defendants lost the trial and were sentenced to between 1 and 6 years in prison. On appeal, the Third Circuit issued a "bug sweep." It held that the vehement rhetoric SHAC campaign was a "real threat" (although they were never charged with destruction of property, or violence, or inducement to engage in such acts) because in that same year had also been cases of illegal activities.
Put another way, the court held that it could restrict the rights under the first amendment of a group of people for past actions committed by others.
For example, one defendant, Josh Harper, gave two talks in which he spoke about the campaign, and support, personal and theoretical Animal Liberation Front and small actions like sending black fax to damage the fax machines of some companies. The appeals court noted, "Harper's personal conduct does not cross the line of illegality. Simply punish him for his political talks would be unconstitutional. However, his behavior ... give circumstantial evidence from which a jury might have drawn the reasonable conclusion that Harper was involved in a conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act "
The Supreme Court denied the writ of cercioración the case, which means it will not be served. In summary, the appeals court ruling have stalled, as the case of the SHAC 7 is closed.
The odds that a case reviewed by the Supreme Court are slim, of course. But I'm a little surprised that this is the case of the SHAC 7. The Supreme Court reviewed the case of the Westboro Baptist Church (the same who created the slogan "God Hates Fags"), finally declaring that they were entitled to carry out their protests at military funerals. John G. Roberts, Chief Justice, wrote that his behavior is "certainly harmless, and insignificant contribution to public discourse, but is protected.
All but one of those convicted of the SHAC 7 case have been released, so this had nothing to do with the length of sentence. It was about the precedent that may create such convictions, especially when given in the context of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and was also related to the label of "terrorists" these activists pursue for the rest of their lives.
Even if you do not agree with the SHAC campaign, or campaigns for animal rights in general, the rejection of the court to hear this case has serious implications for all those activists of any social justice movement. Here is a response
Lauren Gazzola, a people belonging to the group SHAC 7:
"Today was a tough day, but I think the refusal of the Supreme Court review our case is an error. Not only a legal error, but a moral error. In that sense, I had a lot of tough days in recent years. I would like to speak to one of the "less bad."
few weeks ago I gave a talk about the case of the SHAC 7 in a law class. Before you set me talking, the teacher showed a video of undercover investigations inside HLS. It was the first time I saw those images since I left prison and was superior to me. When the video ended, the Executive Director of the National Anti-Vivisection Society got up to introduce myself. He began by saying, "It's hard to know where to start."
I was near her and even a bit shaken after seeing those images. I had planned to start my speech by thanking the teacher for inviting me, also the NAVS (National Anti-Vivisection Society) for sponsoring the event and students for attending. Instead I went to class and said, "I do know exactly where to start. I spent three years of my life trying to close HLS and three years in jail for that reason. Each one of those days was worth it and would do again. " Today, I just like to repeat the same thing: do it again. It was worth it. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment