Oregon Law Review : Vol. 86 No. 1, p.249-294 : Cages, Clinics, and Consequences: The Chilling Problems of Controlling Special-Interest Extremism
Loading...
Date
2007
Authors
Johnson, Dane E.
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Oregon School of Law
Abstract
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.
Description
46 p.
Keywords
United States. Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, AETA, United States. Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, FACE, Domestic terrorism
Citation
86 Or. L. Rev. 249 (2007)