1
And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan.
Resources:
The August 2005 “Exclusion Bill”: http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/ACFAIAt9aaKU.pdf
“Britain uses hate law to ban animal rights campaigner”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/aug/31/internationaleducationnews.highereducation
“Speaking for the Animals, or the Terrorists?”
http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i48/48a00801.htm
“More 4 News Opinion: Activist or Terrorist?”
http://www.channel4.com/more4/news/news-opinion-feature.jsp?id=16
[1] On the history, ethics, and politics of the ALF, see Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella, Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals. New York, Lantern Books, 2004.
[2] See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=395&invol=444: “Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
And here I disagree with this fine sentiment by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which notes on its website: “The best way to counter obnoxious speech is with more speech. Persuasion, not coercion, is the solution.” The flaw with this idealized rational communication model is that the best arguments, often the radical critiques of existing societies, are stifled, marginalized, and repressed, as the prevailing points of view are overtly and covertly enforced, and it takes more than a good argument to challenge and overcome oppressive systems of power, it also takes varying degrees of force.
