Johnson, Dane E.2008-04-212008-04-21200786 Or. L. Rev. 249 (2007)0196-2043https://hdl.handle.net/1794/595246 p.Part I of this Comment provides a background on AETA from its origins in the bioresearch industry to its adoption as law. Part II compares the crimes of militant animal protectionists with those of militant abortion opponents. Part III then compares AETA and FACE, analyzing AETA’s constitutionality using as a model decisions upholding FACE. Part III concludes that AETA does not violate the First Amendment. Part IV argues that since AETA is likely to withstand First Amendment scrutiny, the law legitimizes an inconsistent use of the terrorism label that will hinder protected protest activity. Finally, Part V suggests reasons that this chilling effect is not benign, including societal consequences of constraining protest and economic consequences for protested enterprises.221004 bytesapplication/pdfen-USUnited States. Animal Enterprise Terrorism ActAnimal Enterprise Terrorism ActAETAUnited States. Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994FACEDomestic terrorismArticle