another attack on SHAC

[Organic Revolution]

TRENTON, N.J. - Three animal-rights activists convicted of using their Web site to incite threats and harassment against a company that tests products on animals received prison sentences ranging from four to six years Tuesday.

They were also ordered to pay a total of $1 million in restitution to the company and people they terrorized.

Three other members of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty are awaiting sentencing within the next two weeks.

Along with the organization itself, the six activists were convicted in March of using a Web site to incite threats, harassment and vandalism against Huntingdon Life Sciences, a company that tests drugs and household products on animals.

The government charged that the group waged a five-year campaign against the company, posting the names, addresses and phone numbers of Huntingdon employees and those who do business with the company, and personal information such as where they go to church and where their children attend school.

Many of those people saw their homes vandalized and received threatening e-mails, faxes and phone calls.

The group, based in Philadelphia, maintains its actions were protected under the First Amendment.

The defendants, all in their late 20s or early 30s, were not accused of directly making threats or carrying out vandalism.

The three sentenced were the president of SHAC, Kevin Kjonaas of Minnesota; campaign coordinator Lauren Gazzola of Connecticut; and Web site manager Jacob Conroy of California. Kjonaas was sentenced to six years in prison, Gazzola to four years and four months, and Conroy to four years.


from infoshop.org

[Vinny Rafarino]

If the allegations are true, then fuck 'em, they got off easy.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Drugs ... maybe. Household products, I dunno. I would have to know more about the situation before making a judgment. I dbout the animal rights community is going to lose that one though. A fine and some jail time for a few people doesn't stop them from being replaced.

[LSD]

If the allegations are true, then fuck 'em, they got off easy.

Don't be short-sighted.

Obviously these particular protesters were reactionary idealists, but any law which mandates 6-year prison sentences for "harassing" a corporation is contrary to our interests and must be opposed.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Ace [email protected] 12 2006, 09:21 PM

Don't be short-sighted.

Obviously these particular protesters were reactionary idealists, but any law which mandates 6-year prison sentences for "harassing" a corporation is contrary to our interests and must be opposed.
I believe the sentences were this harsh not because of the harassment of an non-entity but because of the physical and possible mental damages done to actual working people; past, present and future.

Like I said: they got off easy.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+Sep 12 2006, 10:47 PM--> (Vinny Rafarino @ Sep 12 2006, 10:47 PM)
Ace [email protected] 12 2006, 09:21 PM

Don't be short-sighted.

Obviously these particular protesters were reactionary idealists, but any law which mandates 6-year prison sentences for "harassing" a corporation is contrary to our interests and must be opposed.
I believe the sentences were this harsh not because of the harassment of an non-entity but because of the physical and possible mental damages done to actual working people; past, present and future. [/b]
Really? You think the capitalist courts are concerned about "the physical and possible mental damages done to actual working people; past, present and future."?

'Cause corporations routinely do a lot more damage to working people - without anyone at all going to jail!

And a corporation, in the eyes of the courts, is a person - not a "non-entity" as you put it. I kid you not: corporations are legally people, in the U.S. anyway.

Nope, the courts are concerned with protecting capitalist property. That's what they're for. That's probably why they handed down this harsh sentence for "harassment".

And regardless of motive, Ace/LSD is absolutely right: it sets, or at least reinforces, a precedent which will be used against working people.

That's how it always works. For example: The Smith Act ("advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government by force and violence") was first used against American Nazi leaders during WWII. To try it out and get people used to it. That did nothing to actually reduce the danger of fascism in the U.S.

The Smith "Thought Control" Act was later used against the Socialist Workers Party and the Communist Party USA. It was used again and again against the Communist Party - which had made the mistake of supporting the prosecutions of leaders of the German-American Bund and later the Socialist Workers Party.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by severely?
Really? You think the capitalist courts are concerned about "the physical and possible mental damages done to actual working people; past, present and future."?

Don't lecture me about capitalist courts esse, I'm old hat.

The court itself only interprets the law so "it's" irrelevant; the jury is what drops the bomb.


Cause corporations routinely do a lot more damage to working people - without anyone at all going to jail!

Irrelevant.


And a corporation, in the eyes of the courts, is a person - not a "non-entity" as you put it. I kid you not: corporations are legally people, in the U.S. anyway.

Feel free to post the federal law citing this; in any case it's also irrelevant to a jury.


And regardless of motive, Ace/LSD is absolutely right: it sets, or at least reinforces, a precedent which will be used against working people.

While at the same time ignoring the harm already caused to working people. Absurd.


That's how it always works. For example: The Smith Act ("advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government by force and violence") was first used against American Nazi leaders during WWII. To try it out and get people used to it. That did nothing to actually reduce the danger of fascism in the U.S.

The Smith "Thought Control" Act was later used against the Socialist Workers Party and the Communist Party USA. It was used again and again against the Communist Party - which had made the mistake of supporting the prosecutions of leaders of the German-American Bund and later the Socialist Workers Party.

Once again irrelevant.

All you've really done here is show several examples of red herring logical fallacies.

You would have been a good whipping boy for my logic 101 professor back in the day.

[LSD]

I believe the sentences were this harsh not because of the harassment of an non-entity but because of the physical and possible mental damages done to actual working people; past, present and future.

Except there are mechanisms for prosecuting those who inflict that kind of "damage"; none of these individuals were charged with individual attacks (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/nation/15501682.htm), however.

Rather they were charged with harrasing the corporation of Huntington Life Sciences.

Now, in this case the accused may have been assholes and their motives may have been thoroughly reactionary, but what matters is the precedent that this creates, or rather reinfoces.

What happens the next time workers picket? Will they be charged with "harassing" their corporation and its employees? After all, they're "harassing" employees as they try to go to work and they're spreading negative information about the company in question.

By the standard of this case, they're threats to the "person" of that company and, as you so aptly put it, the "mental health" of its employees.

I guess we&#39;d better lock &#39;em up... <_<



And a corporation, in the eyes of the courts, is a person - not a "non-entity" as you put it. I kid you not: corporations are legally people, in the U.S. anyway.

Feel free to post the federal law citing this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_C...ailroad_Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co mpany)


While at the same time ignoring the harm already caused to working people. Absurd.

You mean the vandalism and threatening insults?

I think you&#39;re somewhat exagerating the scope of these "attackers". They didn&#39;t kill anyone, they didn&#39;t even injure anyone. We&#39;re talking about words and drawings here.

I&#39;m not saying that what they did was "good", but I am saying that, in the grand scheme, the consequences of this ruling (and others like it) on the general workers&#39; movement will be worse than the consequences of letting a few animal rights nutters run around spray-painting things.

[Organic Revolution]

i think the problem vinny is running into is the issue of what the politics of the prisoners are. i suppose if it was some communist organization making threats against a corporation he would be all for supporting these prisoners... but since there just lowly animal rights activists they should be sent up for longer&#33;

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Ace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_C...ailroad_Company

You cats really need to stop using jokipedia as gospel. If any of you have ever bothered to read the 14th amendment you would know that nowhere does it classify coporations as a "person".

It was not until several years later that perjurous testimony in front of the SC to grant a decision in this particular case, while at the same time still allowing for due process to give any judge in any the right to make a ruling in direct defiance to the SC ruling in that case.

In addition, a corporation is is not considered an actual live person according to the SC ruling, merely that an agent for the corporation (still a non-entity Severian :lol: ) has the ability to invoke similar due process rights in regards to any property owned by the corporation as defined by state corporate law.

Sorry boys, this is undergrad crap that holds zero relevance to what we are talking about.


You mean the vandalism and threatening insults?

I think you&#39;re somewhat exagerating the scope of these "attackers". They didn&#39;t kill anyone, they didn&#39;t even injure anyone. We&#39;re talking about words and drawings here.

How is that possible?

It is a fact that I cannot "exaggerate" the actions of individuals if I do not know what the actual actions were. I would have had to see the actual court transcripts or the copies of the police reports.

Perhaps you can show me these since you seem to be presenting yourself as having absolute knowledge of the actions of these individuals: "We&#39;re talking about words and drawings here."


I&#39;m not saying that what they did was "good", but I am saying that, in the grand scheme, the consequences of this ruling (and others like it) on the general workers&#39; movement will be worse than the consequences of letting a few animal rights nutters run around spray-painting things.

I find your connection of this ruling to the future of worker&#39;s movement to be dubious at best.

Ragardless of how you interpret the motivation for the charges files by the state, the fact remains this: historically corporations prefer not to go to trial in any matter regardless of the situation but the state DA has an obligation to file charges against any individual that commits crimes that could easily be defined as domestic terrorism should the victims go to press.

Regardless of how the charges are interpreted, the fact remains that it could have been much worse on them.

It wasn&#39;t, even though they deserved it.

You are giving the Corporation way to much credit here homes; we are not talking about Enron here, we&#39;re talking about a very small British PLC that operates with just over 1300 employees worldwide.

[LSD]

You cats really need to stop using jokipedia as gospel. If any of you have ever bothered to read the 14th amendment you would know that nowhere does it classify coporations as a "person".

That&#39;s irrelevent. The constitution also never mentions a right to privacy, but the Supreme Court has interpreted that it&#39;s an "implied" right in the "penumbra" of the 14th ammendment.

Similarly, the court has ruled that the 14th ammendment&#39;s reference to "persons" includes incoporated companies. And that, accordingly, corporations are due the same protections and rights as all other "persons" in the United States.


In addition, a corporation is is not considered an actual live person according to the SC ruling

"Live" person? No. But person, absolutely.

The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..

For all legal purposes, corporations in the United States are considered to be persons in every sense of the word.


How is that possible?

It is a fact that I cannot "exaggerate" the actions of individuals if I do not know what the actual actions were.

Of course you can. It may not be intentional exageration, but it&#39;s exageration nonetheless.

Your statement "I believe the sentences were this harsh not because of the harassment of an non-entity but because of the physical and possible mental damages done to actual working people" asserts that there was "physical ... damage" done to "actual working people", when in reality not one person was injured.

Property was defaced and people were intimidated, but there were no attacks on any "working people" and, again, none of the people convicted were directly linked with any of the vandalism or intimidation.

Rather they were charged with harrasment of the Huntington Life Sciences corporation


I would have had to see the actual court transcripts or the copies of the police reports.

Perhaps you can show me these since you seem to be presenting yourself as having absolute knowledge of the actions of these individuals: "We&#39;re talking about words and drawings here."

I&#39;m not "presenting myself" as having "absolute" anything, I&#39;m just reading the AP report (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/nation/15501682.htm) like everyone else, and according to that story, not a single person was physically harmed by the defendents or anyone associated with the defendents.

And since physical harm would make this a much juicier story, you can be failr certain that if it had happened, it would be in the report.


Ragardless of how you interpret the motivation for the charges files by the state, the fact remains this: historically corporations prefer not to go to trial in any matter regardless of the situation

:blink: What???

Corporatiions love going to court if they think they can gain something from it. In this case Huntington Life Sciences had a good deal to gain, namely an end to the harassment campaign that the defendents had been waging.

Besides, my point is that it doesn&#39;t matter what the DA&#39;s motivation was, what matters is the precedent that this case sets and what it says about corporate rights versus individual freedom.

Again, what happens when instead of animal rights activists it&#39;s union rights activists protesting some "open shop"? What&#39;s to stop them from being locked up just like these guys?

After all, they&#39;d be doing practically the exact same thing, "harassing" a corporation.


Regardless of how the charges are interpreted, the fact remains that it could have been much worse on them.

That doesn&#39;t change the fundamentally reactioanry nature of this law.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Ace
That&#39;s irrelevent

No kidding?

I believe I have already mentioned this stange and wonderful phenomenon before.


Similarly, the court has ruled that the 14th ammendment&#39;s reference to "persons" includes incoporated companies. And that, accordingly, corporations are due the same protections and rights as all other "persons" in the United States.

Close but just off the mark.

The SC ruled in a particular case setting a precedence, that&#39;s all.


For all legal purposes, corporations in the United States are considered to be persons in every sense of the word.


Not exactly.

Corporations can be defined as a "person" an accordance to how the word "person" is defined, and limited to, the 14th amendment.

Corporations can also be stripped of this through due process.


Of course you can. It may not be intentional exageration, but it&#39;s exageration nonetheless.

That&#39;s ridiculous.

To be able to exaggerate a case, you must have a point of origin to exaggerate from.

Period.

And no amount of ad nauseam from you is going to change that.


Your statement "I believe the sentences were this harsh not because of the harassment of an non-entity but because of the physical and possible mental damages done to actual working people" asserts that there was "physical ... damage" done to "actual working people", when in reality not one person was injured.


Once again you are relying on complete speculation of events that you could not possibly have knowledge of.

You have absolutely no idea if the vandalisation of a victim&#39;s home or some other silliness directly related to the defendent&#39;s actions could have led to actual physical harm to an individual.

Be it something as small as being cut on broken glass while cleaning up the mess.

If you have intentions of going to law school jack, get used to this kind of shit.

In addition, you can not speculate on the possible mental damage to a victim of a home invasion, threat or harrassment.

I have a friend Tony who&#39;s home robbed 7 years ago; since then he has left his home on only 3 seperate occasions solely out of extreme fear of being robbed again.



I&#39;m not "presenting myself" as having "absolute" anything, I&#39;m just reading the AP report like everyone else, and according to that story, not a single person was physically harmed by the defendents or anyone associated with the defendents.


That&#39;s not accurate.

You made a claim that is unsubstantiated by the source you have presented in support of that claim.

The story itself never makes a note on whether or not anyone was physically harmed in relation to the defendents.

You simply made that up; just like you made this up:

"We&#39;re talking about words and drawings here."


blink.gif What???

Corporatiions love going to court if they think they can gain something from it. In this case Huntington Life Sciences had a good deal to gain, namely an end to the harassment campaign that the defendents had been waging.

You heard me.

What you are stating here is historically inaccurate. No corporation prefers to go to trial if other means of handling the problem can be reached.

You are also assuming the HL had anything to do with the DA&#39;s choice to prosecute at all.

Unless you have read the court documents, you simply cannot deny the fact that the defendents possibly cut a deal with the DA and and pled to lesser charges against the corporation rather than more serious charges against the people themselves.

Charges such as conspiracy to commit domestic terrorism; one that carries a maximum penalty of death.


After all, they&#39;d be doing practically the exact same thing, "harassing" a corporation

Bullshit.

You are completely ignoring the act of intent. What exactly did the defendents intend to happen to the individuals involved when they publically listed their addresses, names, faces and where their children go to school?

Be ridiculed by some fucking tree-huggers on the street?

No chance.

Their intent was the same as the intent of other nutjobs that do this kind of shit. The same as say, some Christian Fundamentalist who places the faces and names of abortion clinic employees and teenagers on "hit-list" web sites.

They intend for some other nutjob with even worse mental disorders to gather the information and commit acts of extreme violence against those presented.


That doesn&#39;t change the fundamentally reactioanry nature of this law.

Nor is it intended to; 9 out of 10 laws in the USA are "fundamentally reactionary".

[which doctor]

I just got this from a listserve I subscribe too.

------------

SENTENCING UPDATE. KEVIN, LAUREN, AND JAKE SENTENCED. SENTENCING DATES FOR
JOSH HARPER, ANDREW STEPANIAN AND DARIUS FULLMER.

Please note: Only 4 of the defendants were sentenced today, as the court
ran out of time today. Josh Harper will be sentenced tomorrow, September
13th, at 9 am. Please come out and support Josh&#33;

Andrew Stepanian and Darius Fullmer will be sentenced next Tuesday,
September 19th. Please mark you calendars and plan on being at the federal
courthouse in Trenton next Tuesday. Time TBA.

Today was the first day of sentencing for the SHAC 7 defendants. It was
both an inspiring and a disappointing day. Inspiring to see a courtroom
packed full of activists who had travelled from all corners of the country
overflowing into the lobby--a powerful reminder that despite attempts by
the government, activists will not be intimidated.

It was also a disappointing day, as the government dealt yet another blow
to activists everywhere. Once again, the government reminded activists
that speaking out too loud and being too effective won&#39;t be tolerated in
post-9/11 America.

The organization SHAC USA was sentenced first, which is ultimately a
symbolic act by the court, as the entity SHAC USA does not really exist.
The court then moved on to the individual defendants.

After a tirade of inflammatory rhetoric by the prosecutor, impassioned
speeches by the defense, and commentary by the court, the court handed
down the following sentences:

Kevin Kjonaas: 72 months
Lauren Gazzola: 54 months
Jacob Conroy: 48 months

In addition, the court ordered the (penniless) defendants to pay
&#036;1,000,001 in restitution.

While the sentences are unjust, just as this entire case has been, there
is some victory in that most of the defendants received significantly less
prison time than proscribed by the federal sentencing guidelines.

While we are temporarily losing several activists to prison, as everyone
knows, the campaign will continue as it always has. This movement is much
bigger than six people&#33;

Unfortunately, the court had a scheduling conflict, so there was not
enough time to sentence all of the defendants today. As a result, Joshua
Harper was scheduled for sentence tomorrow, September 13th, at 9 am, and
Darius Fullmer and Andrew Stepanian were scheduled for September 19th.

The sentences will be appealed, but in the mean time, sharpen those
pencils and get ready to write&#33; As soon as the defendants start their
prison sentences, addresses will be available online--stay tuned to
SHAC7.com.

A big thank you to all those who came out for sentencing--we hope to see
you tomorrow and on the 19th&#33;

The three who were sentenced today were ordered to turn themselves in to
the U.S. Marshall in 30 days to start their prison sentences.

[MolotovLuv]

They aren&#39;t planning to pay that fine are they?

Those assholes don&#39;t deserve a penny :angry:

[bezdomni]

US corporations have benefitted more from the 15th amendment than black people.

And by benefitted I mean filed (and won) more Supreme Court cases where the 15th amendment was used as precedent.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 07:38 PM
US corporations have benefitted more from the 15th amendment than black people.

And by benefitted I mean filed (and won) more Supreme Court cases where the 15th amendment was used as precedent.
What does that have to do with the fact that these individuals intended, directly or indirectly, for harm, whether physical or otherwise, to be placed upon innocent workers and their families.

You really can&#39;t compare the plight of American Blacks to corporations relying on a dubious interpretation of the 14th amendment to make sure that their corporate assets are protected from governmental siezure without due process.

[socialistfuture]

the workers are not innocent - they work on industries that harm animals - hence why they are targeted by the animal rights movement.
no workers have been hurt - the protests and actions are NVDA (non violent direct action).
they are targeting a corporation, and have been rather succesful - the state has fought back.
groups like the ALF and ELF are not reactionary.
all power to those on the frontline&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Socialist future
the workers are not innocent - they work on industries that harm animals - hence why they are targeted by the animal rights movement.

Actually they work for industries that, in most cases, develop medical procedures and pharmaceuticals that either save human lives or make human lives better.


no workers have been hurt - the protests and actions are NVDA (non violent direct action).

Pure speculation.


they are targeting a corporation, and have been rather succesful - the state has fought back. groups like the ALF and ELF are not reactionary.
all power to those on the frontline&#33;&#33;&#33;

Luckily enough for us, I highly doubt that a future Communist society would adopt this line; it simply doesn&#39;t make any sense.

[socialistfuture]

no workers have been hurt - the protests and actions are NVDA (non violent direct action).




Pure speculation.

prove otherwise.

i know from reading the ELF & ALF material that they are non violent and that does not include property (property is theft- specially private as opposed to collective). i know most anarchists support the earth liberation front and animal liberation front techniques - it is direct action, anticapitalist and effective.

i cannot understand why sum bougie&#39;s here support the corporations they are targeting.

animal torture and testing is pro corporate - not pro science.
while im not big on Abraham - i think this quote along with the others is spot on.


"Atrocities are not less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called medical research."
- George Bernard Shaw (Nobel 1925)


"The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men."
- Leonardo da Vinci


"I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being."
- Abraham Lincoln

[socialistfuture]

Actually they work for industries that, in most cases, develop medical procedures and pharmaceuticals that either save human lives or make human lives better.
now that is pure speculation.

lil history lesson for the less informed:


ELF evolved out of Earth First&#33;, an ardent environmentalist group founded, in its own words, "in response to a lethargic, compromising, and increasingly corporate environmental community." Dave Foreman, a former lobbyist for the Wilderness Society, and several other activists influenced by more militant organizations, founded Earth First&#33; around 1980.
---------------------
The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is the nation&#39;s most active extreme animal rights movement. Composed of anonymous underground cells that oppose any form of animal experimentation and perceived mistreatment, it aims to rescue animals from "places of abuse" and to "inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals". ALF cells have claimed responsibility for hundreds of direct actions.

http://www.earthliberationfront.com/ (http://http://www.earthliberationfront.com/)
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ (http://http://www.animalliberationfront.com/)

In 1998, the BBC broadcast a graphic documentary showing mistreatment of animals by Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), a British-based research firm. In response, outraged animal rights activists in Britain began to pressure financial institutions associated with HLS to drop their support of the company and thereby force HLS to discontinue using animals in its tests. The campaign, which borrowed from the ideology and tactics of ALF and ELF, named itself Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). SHAC quickly become a transatlantic cause among radical animal rights activists, with chapters in Germany, Italy, Portugal and the United States. To date, its activists have claimed responsibility for several bombings and dozens of acts of vandalism and harassment in both the U.S. and Europe.