[skip navigation]
In two separate trials over the past several months, anti-abortion activists have been held accountable in civil trials for their advocacy of violence under laws that may be exploitable by those trying to stop animal rights violence.
In a Chicago trial last year, Planned Parenthood and other groups won millions of dollars in awards from activists who never actually committed acts of violence but did make (often vague) statements supporting or inciting such violence. In the recently concluded "Nuremberg Files" case, a jury delivered a guilty verdict against an antiabortion web site that displayed "wanted posters" of abortion doctors, along with personal information such as addresses, phone numbers and even the names of the doctors' children.
So what dos that have to do with animal rights violence? A lot actually. In both cases lawyers relied heavily on the civil provisions of the |Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations| (RICO) law. The RICO law was originally passed to allow prosecutors to go after legitimate businesses that had been taken over by the mob and used to hide criminal activity.
Along with the criminal provisions, RICO included provisions allowing private individuals to sue groups and individuals who illegally interfere with the operations of legal enterprises.
In its release after the trial, the American Medical Association heralded the verdict and specifically mentioned possible action "on behalf of biomedical researchers targeted by an extreme faction of ‘animal rights activists.’" Assuming the verdict in both the Chicago and "Nuremberg Files" cases holds up on appeal, some animal rights organizations and web sites could be ripe for similar lawsuits.
The most vulnerable groups would be those posting Animal Liberation Front materials or materials in support of ALF actions. There are several web sites that include instructions on how to build incendiary devices along with the names and addresses of fur farms and medical researchers. These individuals and groups are exposing themselves to an extraordinary degree of liability under RICO.
Even the more "mainstream" animal rights groups might not be beyond successful prosecution. In the Chicago case, for example, several defendants were convicted based on the following set of circumstances: a) they made rather inflammatory statements about abortion doctors or clinics at one point or another, although they never personally engaged in violence nor directly incited such violence; and b) they ended up working in a broad coalition of antiabortion activists that included both groups that condemned violence and groups that advocated or at least sympathized with violence.
The jury in the Chicago case agreed with Planned Parenthood lawyers who argued that the coalition of groups met the standards of a criminal conspiracy under RICO.
I suspect the Supreme Court may tighten up some of the requirements for such civil violations of RICO, but it has already affirmed the fundamental tenets behind such suits. Such laws could possibly be used to shut down animal rights groups and sites that are clearly advocating violence.
Sources:
AMA Applauds Verdict Against Web Site That Threatened Violence Against Physicians. American Medical Association, Press Release, February 2, 1999.
Anti-abortion foes vow appeal. Maria Seminerio, ZDNN, February 3, 1999.
Limiting Web speech rights. Brad Knickerbocker, Christian Science Monitor, February 4, 1999.