The Very Essence Of The First Amendment
Print This Post
The AETA4′s lawyer:
“[T]he defendants are accused of identifying and locating animal researchers and then loudly picketing on the sidewalks in front of their homes. The intent was, and is, to stop the torture and other mistreatment of animals by speaking out in a non-violent manner to shame the researchers by exposing them and their conduct to their neighbors.”
“This kind of activity, speaking out to expose wrongdoers, is the very essence of the First Amendment.”
Wow! The interests of the rich and powerful vs the interests of the few (defending the interests of non-human non-voters). I was involved in a similar situation a few years ago. It was a civil suit, not a criminal case, but it’s essentially the same thing. Big businesses attempting to crush anyone who speaks out against them.
Putting aside from the free speech issues, does anyone else find this kind of animal activism troubling? These people followed animal researchers to their homes and protested. If they want to picket outside their office, that’s fine, but the researchers weren’t doing anything illegal, so why should they be subjected to personal attacks?
The idea that they wanted to shame the researchers is ridiculous. The vast majority of Americans are in favor of animal experimentation, so how would they be shamed when their neighbors found out? Animal rights advocacy should be focused on educating people, not trying to intimidate individuals. Should we also start following around butchers and meat-packers and protesting at their homes? Does anyone think that would be effective advocacy?
As long as there is demand for animal products there will be suppliers, so it bothers me that we waste valuable time and resources attacking the suppliers. If we lessen the demand then the suppliers naturally disappear, not the other way around.
Andrew, No, I don’t find it troubling.
See: http://www.vegansoapbox.com/granting-the-luxury-of-privacy/
That’s a fair argument, although I still don’t see how it advances animal rights to protest the people who are only supplying what the rest of the society is demanding.
No one actually demands animal experiments, not in the way they demand meat or other animal products. The “demand” in the area of animal experimentation IS one and the same as the supply.
It depends on the situation. It’s not like a drug company can stop testing on animals. It’s legislated by the government that they have to because the public demands that new drugs be used on animals before humans as a safety precaution. The only way to change that system is to convince the public that animal testing is not necessary and/or morally unjustifiable.