Now activist groups are facing an even more sophisticated assault in civil court. Huntingdon Life Sciences, Europe’s largest animal testing company, together with Stephens, Inc., its largest investor, have filed a lawsuit claiming that U.S. animal protection groups have violated federal racketeering law by joining together to force the companies to change their business practices. If the company wins, it will bankrupt three national animal protection groups: In Defense of Animals, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and the Animal Defense League. [...] The companies seek millions in "economic damages" because they say animal rights groups formed a violent interstate network, using cell phones and e-mail, which violates the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970. RICO was originally created to bring down mob bosses, not non-profits. It wasn’t used against activists until the National Organization for Women waged a 12-year court battle against anti-abortion groups, claiming they were part of a national conspiracy to shut down abortion clinics. In 1998, the Supreme Court said RICO could be used this way, and the anti-abortion activists were eventually convicted of 21 acts of extortion.
Well ... I understand why they did it, but the Court seems to have opened Pandora's Box with this one. I suspect the original case was wrongly decided, at its core, and it would be well for Congress to revisit the RICO statutes to narrow their focus. (And to tell the IRS that civil disobedience is no grounds for going after an organization's nonprofit status.) Unfortunately, at the current time, they're more likely to look to broaden the statutes to go after those who support terrorist crimes, which is going to be hard on free speech.
There may be some interesting lessons buried in this, although how they can be applied is beyond me. What will eventually wind up happening is that the new laws will be challenged in court, and it will depend entirely on how well funded the organizations are and how determined they and the individuals involved are. And the particular bent of any given judge hearing the cases.
Copyright © 2001, Iain Jackson, after-words.org
[Archives: 2001 and after]
Archives before February 5, 2001
Search entries:
12/19/2001: vive la france
12/19/2001: princess, redux
12/19/2001: yemen and rumsfeld
12/18/2001: you're NOT in the army now
12/18/2001: interesting donation
12/18/2001: shame on winn dixie, indeed
12/18/2001: saudi princess
12/17/2001: new resolve
12/17/2001: a victim of the attack ... yeah, right
12/17/2001: polluters ho!