California lawmakers will begin reviewing a draft Thursday of a proposed bill aimed at protecting researchers who conduct animal testing from animal rights activists.
The bill, AB 2296, also titled the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, is currently being reviewed by the state Assembly Judiciary Committee. If passed, the law would provide criminal and civil provisions to the current state law regarding any threats, harassment, vandalism and other violent acts intended to interfere with and intimidate animal enterprises and researchers.
Modeled after laws that protect reproductive health care workers and elected officials, the bill would form a counterpart to existing federal and state law that prohibits the harassment of individuals dealing with animal research.
The bill, sponsored by the University of California, comes after a string of incidents during which researchers and their families have been repeatedly intimidated and harassed in their homes and at work. The increase in the severity and violent nature of groups such as the Animal Liberation Front and other animal rights extremists has prompted the legislation of the bill, said Paul Schwartz, a spokesman for the UC Office of the President.
At a teleconference Monday, several UC officials discussed the bill’s implications.
Assembly member Gene Mullin, D-South San Francisco, who was asked by the UC to introduce the legislation, emphasized the need to balance the right to free speech with the need to protect researchers.
He added that it is important to protect the research being conducted because of the long-term benefits to society.
The bill cites problems with the current federal law, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which was introduced in 2006 and extended the protections of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 to provide federal law enforcement officials with broader authority to prosecute animal rights extremists.
Under current federal law, criminals must be prosecuted by a federal prosecutor, such as a U.S. attorney, and must involve some form of interstate or foreign commerce. Proving the interstate commerce jurisdiction may not be very difficult since postings on the Internet or use of mail fulfill the requirement. The problem arises when the crime does not cross state lines.
The bill would also make it illegal to post personal information about researchers on the Internet and would curtail the availability of public records information available on researchers.
The 2006 law marked the first time prosecutors were able to define the threats as a form of terrorism because of the fear they instill in the victims even though no physical violence occurs, according to an official within Mullin’s office.
The use of the term sparked some concerns during the teleconference. However, Schwartz said the harassment that researchers are subject to and the violence associated with them make the harassment a form of terrorism rather than a form of free speech.
“It’s terrorism with a small “˜t,'” Schwartz said of the incidents where researchers’ lives have been threatened with physical harm.
According to Daily Bruin archives, the home of a UCLA researcher was attacked in February when an incendiary device was found in her home, ignited and caused property damage.
Any instances where researchers’ lives are placed in danger does not constitute free speech, Schwartz said.
“From our point of view, the really important thing that we hope people understand is this is not about curtailing free speech. It’s about curtailing violence … and protecting people from harm,” Schwartz said.