AnimalRights.Net

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty’s web site was taken off of Envirolink this week after Huntingdon Life Sciences sent a letter to Envirolink accusing the SHAC web site of being in violation of provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The DMCA is a controversial revision of copyright law designed to deal with the unique situations created by electronic media. Unfortunately, the DMCA was written largely to benefit large media corporations and is front loaded with a number of questionable requirements.

In the case of a web site such as SHAC’s, for example, as soon as Envirolink received a letter from HLS accusing the site of a copyright violation, it was legally obligated to take down the site for a minimum of 10 days, regardless of whether or not Envirolink thought HLS had a legitimate complaint. SHAC can have its site restored only after it sends a certified letter saying it is in compliance with copyright laws, but the site can’t be reinstated until at least 10 working days have passed. If Envirolink keeps the site up, it could potentially end up bearing some of the liability for any copyright infringements.

As much as I dislike SHAC, this essentially gives a broad power of prior restraint for just about anyone to take down sites with which they disagree.

For example, a few months ago I wrote about a staged picture from the VegSource.Com web site and included a copy of the picture and an extreme close-up showing it had been altered. Such use is clearly covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws.

But if VegSource wanted to they could send a letter to my Internet host alleging a copyright violation, and unless my host wants to be sued itself, it would have to take down that portion of the site for at least 10 working days.

As Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard Law School told Salon, “It’s a ridiculous balancing act. It’s clearly Congress trying to strike a compromise: Once the cat is out of the bag on the Internet, it’s all over, on the other hand, this idea that prior restraint of speech [is OK] because someone sent a letter sounds pretty bad.”

Not that it’s easy to get too worked up about SHAC’s predicament given its propensity for advocating and using violence to achieve its means. SHAC’s minimalist web page notes that the lawsuits and other actions by HLS, Stephens, and others are having an effect on the group:

SHAC USA is in desperate need of funds to keep us operational. We are currently fighting an upwards of nine lawsuits and we can’t do it without your support. Please help us in anyway that you can!

Source:

No free speech for animal rights Web sites. Katharine Mieszkowski, Salon.Com, August 31, 2001.

Megan Lewis, one of the founders of the Texas Establishment for Animal Rights, is trying to have one of her parole conditions thrown out on the grounds that it unconstitutionally inhibits her right to free speech.

Lewis was arrested on November 27, 1998 and charged with a misdemeanor for blocking a passageway while taking part in a protest at a Nieman Marcus store. Lewis was convicted and sentenced to serve 10 days in jail and a 24-month probation.

As part of the conditions of her probation, Judge Ralph Taite ordered that Lewis may not participate in any animal rights protest for the duration of her probationary period. Lewis had been sentenced the year before to 1 day in jail after another arrest at an animal rights protest.

Lewis appealed her conviction to the 5th District Court of Appeals which upheld the judge-imposed restriction on her protesting activities, ruling that judges have wide discretion to impose reasonable rules to protect a community and attempt to rehabilitate an offender.

Sources:

Gag order. Mark Hughes, The Dallas Observer Online, August 23, 2001.

Rally will be held today for anti-fur activist who will be jailed. Rick Lannoye, Dallas Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, Press Release, August 9, 2001.

The Great Britain-based Seriously Ill for Medical Research recently released a list of winners of its Mad Animal Rights Awards highlighting “some of the lunatic excesses of the animal rights and antivivisection movement.” Even if they restricted themselves to the previous year, they must have had an overwhelming number of lunatic moments to cull down to just 13 awards.

Some of the highlights included the award for the Best Conspiracy Theory which went to the British Anti Vivisection Association for its claim that it possesses information that could “save the lives of countless human victims of today’s vivisection-based medicine and research; information which is unfavourable to the multi-billion pound/dollar pharmaceutical/ vivisection industry, and which we believe is, for whatever reason, being deliberately withheld by the BBC.”

Read the full list at http://www.simr.org.uk/pages/news/08-2001/index.html

Source:

Mad Animal Rights Awards highlight loony antics. Seriously Ill for Medical Research, Press Release, August 29, 2001.

Back in July, I noted that it was odd that animal rights activists had not come out to defend the shark who attacked and almost killed Jessie Arbogast. Apparently People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals was just temporarily distracted, because this month they unveiled a new billboard wit the tagline, “Would you give your right arm to know why sharks attack? Could it be revenge?”

On its web site, PETA likens the pain and suffering endured by Arbogast after the attack to what sharks experience when fishers catch them. According to PETA,

The recent injuries suffered by shark attack victims offer us a glimpse into the terrifying experience these fish endure when they are hauled out of their environment only to be pitch-forked back into the water after their fins have been sliced off. While their fins are made into “delicacies” such as shark-fin soup, the sharks either suffocate or slowly bleed to death.

PETA says that readers can help sharks avoid this fate by going vegetarian, but conveniently forgets to mention that shark finning is already effectively illegal in the territorial waters of the United States thanks to a law signed by Bill Clinton in December 2000. Australia also banned shark finning last year.

Dan Shannon, the coordinator of PETA’s anti-fishing campaign, told The Sun Herald that the animal rights group intends to “capitalizes on a news story, which is current right now, and that is Jessie Arbogast.”

Ironically Shannon added that “obviously our prayers are with him [Arbogast],” but if PETA had its way many of the cutting edge techniques used to keep Arbogast alive and treat his injuries would have been impossible since they were pioneered with animal research.

The microsurgery techniques used to try to reattach Arbogast’s right arm, for example, would have been all but impossible to develop without extensive development and testing with animals — exactly the sort of research that PETA regularly criticizes the medical research community for conducting.

Sources:

Shark Finning Banned in U.S. Waters. Cat Lazaroff, Environment News Service, December 27, 2000.

Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Go Back into the Water. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, web page.

PETA capitalizing on Jessie’s attack. Reni Winter, The Sun Herald, August 30, 2001.

Don’t worry about remembering StileProject.Com (warning, the site is filled pornographic and offensive images) — you’re going to be hearing a lot about it from animal rights activists. The furor over this site is likely to make the anger over BonsaiKitten.Com pale in comparison.

According to Wired’s Leander Kaheny, StileProject.Com is featuring a “graphic video show[ing] a conscious kitten being struck on the head, decapitated, butcher and cooked.”

Wired seems to think the video is real (unlike the BonsaiKitten.Com parody), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’s Peter Wood tells Kaheny that, “We’re going to do everything in our power to have the folks who put this on the Web prosecuted. We look forward to bringing the powers that be down on them.”

PETA hopes the owner of the site, Jonathan Biderman, will be indicted under a December 1999 law that made it a felony to possess “a depiction of animal cruelty.”

The only problem with that idea, however, is that the law is clearly unconstitutional. At best Biderman might end up being the test case that has the law invalidated by an appeals court.

Moreover, it is not even clear if Biderman is violating the law against depicting animal cruelty even if you accept the legitimacy of the law. Like most anti-obscenity statutes, the law against depicting animal cruelty included a loophole for “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value.”

This is why no one’s prosecuted PETA for the depictions of animal cruelty it posts on its own web site, and its a loophole big enough to drive an 18-wheeler through — and certainly big enough for StileProject.Com to slip through.

In fact on his site Biderman puts a decidedly animal rights spin on the video, writing:

To us it seems like the ultimate taboo. How could those Godless Asians [Biderman claims the video originated in South Korea] do such a thing to such a beautiful creature? Well, I’m sure Indians wonder the same thing about us, but you don’t see North Americans shedding a tear every time a cow is slaughtered … When’s the last time you cried over a Big Mac?

I do not condone animal abuse, and I view the video more as an educational tool than one of shock value. For us to say it is wrong, it would just make us all hypocrites since most of us eat meat.

Sorry, PETA, but as distasteful as it may be, Biderman has just as much right to post disturbing images of animals being slaughtered as you do. The investigation of Biderman will likely go about as far as the FBI’s investigation into BonsaiKitten.Com.

This will probably end up making good fund raising material for PETA and other groups, but little else.

Source:

Gruesome movie sparks outrage. Leander Kahney, Wired, August 29, 2001.

Sometime the night of August 1st or the early morning of August 2nd, animal rights activists released 3,000 mink from a fur farm near the Spanish city of Teruel.

The Guardian (London) reported that the mink are an American variety not native to Spain and officials were concerned that the mink might displace local native species. Although Spain is generally too dry to allow the mink to survive very long, local officials told The Guardian that mink who escaped from a farm a decade earlier had set up a small colon on the banks of a nearby river.

Even local ecologists who oppose mink farming were appalled at the action. Teo Oberhuber of Ecologists in Action told The Guardian, “Despite the terrible conditions in which they are kept and the shameful systems employed to kill them, setting the animals free into the wild is an act of gross irresponsibility.

A few weeks later in Holland, activists freed almost 17,000 mink from a farm in Valkenswaard. As of August 24, about 1,500 mink had been recaptured and about 200 ofthe animals had been killed, mostly after being struck by automobiles.

Sources:

Mink ‘liberation’ sparks mass hunt. Ananova, August 24, 2001.

Fur flies as 3,000 mink freed in raid. Giles Tremlett, The Guardian (London), August 2, 2001.

The American-Israel Chamber of Commerce in Atlanta, Georgia, recently threatened to sue animal rights group In Defense of Animals in a dispute over a web site that In Defense of Animals maintains, EmoryLies.Com.

The web site targets Emory University and the Yerkes Primate Center, which In Defense of Animals wants to shut down. Probably because it is a high profile target, the group has lately been targeting Coca-Cola in its dispute over the primate facility. Although the company has nothing at all to do with the primate facility, it has donated more than $100 million to Emory University.

On October 11, 2001, the American-Israel Chamber of Commerce, whose mission is to highlight and encourage economic ties between the United States and Israel, plans to hold an awards ceremony at Coca-Cola’s world headquarters honoring “people and companies who have made a significant impact on business between the Southeast and Israel.”

In Defense of Animals plans to protest at the meeting and has posted information about their protest on the EmoryLies.Com, both of which are perfectly legal. But they have crossed a line in expropriating artwork from the AICC site and placed it on the EmoryLies.Com site in a way that would probably fool a reasonable person.

Judge for yourself. Here’s the real page from the AICC announcing its awards ceremony:

Now, here’s the page from EmoryLies.Com announcing their protest:

The overall effect here is clearly to make it appear as if the American-Israel Chamber of Commerce is somehow involved with or in support of IDA’s actions against Coca-Cola.

IDA released a press release claiming that the lawsuit would go the same route as a lawsuit filed by Stephens Inc. against Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. SHAC had used the logo and web site design from Stephens web site to parody Stephens. They used the logo, for example, but added the words “Invest in animal cruelty.” A judge threw out the lawsuit, saying that this was protected under the First Amendment.

But the situation is very different with IDA since it has made no effort to distinguish the AICC materials as a parody. I suspect that Jean Barnes, who apparently created the site, will find herself on the losing end of this lawsuit.

Sources:

American-Israel Chamber of Commerce threatens legal action against web site exposing bad science and animal cruelty. In Defense of Animals, Press Release, August 21, 2001.

Animal activists ready for fight–attorney retained. In Defense of Animals, Press Release, August 21, 2001.

What’s the difference between an animal rights activist and a schizophrenic bomber? In the case of Glynn Harding, 26, the two maladies converged into a bombing campaign that seriously injured thee people.

In July Harding plead guilt in the United Kingdom to 12 counts of sending explosive devises with intent and three counts of causing bodily harm with explosives. Only sheer luck prevented more harm and possible deaths in the bombings (one victim’s life was saved, for example, when he opened the bomb from the wrong end). As it was, one of Harding’s bombs seriously injured a six-year-old girl and blinded an estate agent in one eye.

Harding began sending his bombs in December 2000, and targeted businesses connected in some way with animal industries.

Harding suffers from schizophrenia and had been held in a secure mental facility since his February 2001 arrest. Sentencing proceedings will not commence in the case until sometime in September.

Sources:

Letter bomber motivated by animal rights. Angelique Chrisafis, The Guardian (London), July 28, 2001.

Animal rights bomber admits terror campaign. Paul Stokes, The Daily Telegraph (London), July 28, 2001.

Man admits sending letter bombs. The BBC, July 27, 2001.

According to the BBC, researchers at the UK’s Southampton University were touting ongoing research their conducting to genetically modify the tilapia species of fish to both grow faster as well as produce an important blood clotting agent.

Funded by the UK’s Department for International Development, the researchers hope to modify the fish to grow three times as fast as the naturally occurring tilapia.

Norman Maclean, a professor of genetics working on the project, also told the BBC that they hope to turn the species into a biological factory for an important, but currently expensive blood clotting agent. Maclean told the BBC,

We are currently working with an American bio-tech company to produce this blood-clotting agent called ‘factor seven’, which is very important in the treatment of someone who has, for example, been involved in a road accident. At the moment, factor seven is being used, but it is very expensive, and this research should help reduce the cost of its production.

Certainly the usual suspects in the animal rights movement will be horrified at the idea of using a genetically-modified fish to save people’s lives.

Source:

‘Superfish’ to ease food shortage. The BBC, August 16, 2001.

In February of this year, Huntingdon Life Sciences executive Brian Cass was attacked outside his home by three men wielding pickaxe handles. This month one of the attackers involved, animal rights activist David Blenkinsop, plead guilty to the assault and was sentenced to three years in jail for what the judge in the case called a “wicked act.”

Police tracked down Blenkinsop from DNA samples they found on the pickaxe handles. In Great Britain, most people convicted of crimes have DNA samples permanently stored in a nation-wide database. Blenkinsop has a long history of convictions for animal rights-related violence. When police ran the DNA samples through their database, Blenkinsop was flagged as a suspect.

Prior to his sentencing, Blenkinsop’s lawyer, Ian MacDonald, claimed that his client no longer believes violence is acceptable. “He was, and remains, appalled at the suffering of animals at HLS. He deeply regrets his part in this attack and now realizes that peaceful protest is the only way forward.”

It is amazing how so many animal rights terrorists have sudden changes of hearts when trying to angle for lenient sentences from judges.

And lets not leave this story without noting that a little more than a month ago, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty’s Kevin Jonas issued a press release endorsing Blenkinsop as “a brilliant and accomplished animal rights activist.” In a SHAC press release, Jonas said,

The police and animal abuse industries in the UK have wanted to stitch him up for years but have never been able too. While in custody Dave was also charged with the liberation of 600 Guinea Pigs from Newchurch Farm (a major breeder in England) in September of 2000. (Why he is being charged with this now is a mystery to everyone and indicates the police just want to make sure he remains in jail during the wait for his trial.)

Dave did not attack Brian Cass and this will be proven during his trial, in the meantime though the police think they have taken one of the best activists out of commission. We must prove them wrong and show that we only get strong as they attempt to stifle the only voice those animals inside of HLS have. Please send kind letters of support to Dave. Be advised that all of his letters are read by police and prison officials. Also, the police will use anything they can to try to tie Dave to direct action so please send him only updates about and news about legal campaigns.

Hmmm, “Dave did not attack Brian Cass and this will be proven during his trial.” As a psychic and a judge of character, Jonas is almost as pathetic as he is in his attempts to explain away the need for the animal research that HLS conducts.

At least now we have a good benchmark for what qualifies as a “brilliant and accomplished animal rights activist.”

Sources:

Jail for lab boss attacker. The BBC, August 16, 2001.

Animal activist jailed for attack. Claire Hu, The Times (London), August 17, 2001.

Protest attacker jailed. The Scotsman, August 17, 2001.

Animal rights activist jailed. Harvey Morris, The Financial Times, August 17, 2001.

Activist jailed for attack with pickaxe handle. Chris Gray, The Independent (London), August 17, 2001.

Animal Lib Prisoner. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, Press Release, June 28, 2001.