On March 2, the Bush administration dealt yet another blow to the First Amendment. The SHAC 7 were found guilty of multiple federal felonies for advocating the closure of the notorious animal-testing lab operated by Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS). “SHAC” stands for “Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty.”

Six activists face years in federal prison. Four are currently under house arrest awaiting sentencing in June. The SHAC7 Support Committee and attorneys are working to get the remaining two released as well.

This conviction is an appalling miscarriage of justice. It also demonstrates the erosion of free speech protections and is part of a politically motivated attack on the animal rights movement in particular. It’s the first time anyone has been tried under the 1992 Animal Enterprise Protection Act.

The convictions set a nightmarish precedent for animal protection campaigners throughout the country. Industry hacks hope that such convictions will clear the way for the government to go after any campaigns against big business, regardless of their tactics.

All of the defendants were involved in the campaign to close HLS, a contract research lab with one facility in New Jersey and two in England.

International Day against Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS). Activists from Boston Animal Defense League (BADL) and NewYork City Win Animal Rights(WAR), outside HLS laboratory, East Millstone, N.J. May 28th, 2005 [Photo courtesy BADL]

Horrendous acts of cruelty to animals at the lab were exposed in five undercover investigations. Video footage showed workers punching beagles in the face, dissecting live monkeys, falsifying scientific data, and violating much of the Animal Welfare Act. Since 1999, global campaigns against the lab have brought it to the brink of closure.

It was only a matter of time before big business called on the government to stop the activists. There were several Congressional hearings. On May 26, 2004, a NewJersey federal grand jury indicted seven individuals and the organization Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA on charges of animal enterprise terrorism. Also included in the indictment were charges of interstate stalking and conspiracy to use a telecommunications device to harass others.

The Indictment

Indicted were Kevin Kjonaas, Lauren Gazzola, Jacob Conroy, Joshua Harper, Andrew Stepanian, Darius Fullmer, and John McGee. McGee was eventually dropped from the case.

All of the defendants were charged with conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, a never-before-applied 1992 statute. Kjonaas, Gazzola, Conroy, and Harper were also charged with conspiracy to harass using a telecommunications device—sending “black faxes.” Kjonaas, Gazzola, Conroy, and SHAC USA were charged with conspiracy to commit interstate stalking and three counts of interstate stalking via the Internet.

The defendants were not accused of having personally engaged in terrorist or threatening acts. Instead, the government’s case centers around the idea that organizers of a campaign are responsible for any and all acts that anyone engages in while furthering the goals of the organizers. The claim is that the SHAC7 should be imprisoned because unknown persons took illegal actions against companies with ties to HLS.

If it weren’t so serious, this distortion of the law would be laughable, and yet somehow the defendants were convicted and are now facing years in federal prison based on the claim that being part of an activist campaign is tantamount to being a member of a global conspiracy.

**The “Green Scare”**

During the “Red Scare” of the 1940s and ‘50s, government propaganda campaigns convinced the public that members of the Communist Party represented an imminent threat to the United States. In association with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, Senator Joseph McCarthy was able to brand anyone who disagreed with him as a Communist or Communist sympathizer. Two of the main tools used to pursue these goals were federal grand juries and Senate hearings.

Today we see a return of these tactics in the collaboration between U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) and FBI Deputy Assistant Director John Lewis. In hearings last year, Lewis labeled the animal liberation and environmental movements the biggest domestic terrorism threats facing the country. Inhofe indicated that, since the government could not find the people who engaged in “underground” activities, it must go after the “above-ground” activists in these movements.

Three of the six charges in the indictment were conspiracy counts. Three defendants faced only conspiracy charges. A conspiracy charge is typically very vague, very difficult to prove, and yet very easy to imply guilt. These sorts of charges have a long history of use for political purposes.

During the 1960s, conspiracy charges were used to target anti-war protesters. For instance, a grand jury indicted eight activists on conspiracy and incitement charges for their part in protesting the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

The SHAC7 defendants were accused of conspiring to incite others to break the law in pursuit of shutting down HLS. US courts have held that under the First Amendment free speech permits advocacy of force and violation of the law, unless it incites or produces imminent lawless action.

For example, in Hess v. Indiana, the Court overturned the conviction of a demonstrator who was overheard saying “we’ll take the fucking street later.” The Court concluded that the unlawful action advocated was not imminent but rather at some indefinite future time. The Court also found constitutional protection for the statement by NAACP members that “If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we’re going to break your damn neck.”

Protests Across State Lines

The only other charges were federal stalking counts. The government’s case was that organizing or participating in protests at homes across state lines becomes stalking. There were police present at the protests, and if anyone had done anything illegal, they clearly would have been arrested.

In order to convict on these charges, the jury had to be convinced that the witnesses were not only in fear for their lives or of being physically harmed as a result of the protests, but also that this was a reasonable fear, and that the protesters intended for them to feel this way. With such a high burden of proof required, and the knowledge that this was never the intent of the defendants, these charges appeared impossible to get a conviction on.

The Trial

The case began with a mistrial in June 2005, and resumed on February 6, 2006. The judge ruled that the defendants could not introduce their own computer expert. But the government could introduce their computer expert. There could be no anti-vivisection expert, but government witnesses could carry on about the benefits of animal research.

He limited the defendants’ peremptory challenges during jury selection to seven and failed to dismiss jurors who worked for companies that had been the subject of the campaign to close HLS. The government paraded a long list of witnesses up on the stand to testify about protest activity they had been subjected to. None could identify any of the defendants as engaging in any criminal acts against them. Many testified about the criminal acts of others.

The judge allowed HLS Director Brian Cass, based in the UK, to testify about an attack on him in England, and about the benefits of animal research. He had nothing to say about the defendants. Over time, it became clear that the government’s strategy was to throw in every action that has ever happened in the campaign against HLS and then insinuate that the defendants were somehow involved.

The highlight of the government’s case was a young activist from Ohio who had sent black faxes to an HLS supporter and participated in an Electronic Civil Disobedience (ECD) against an HLS affiliate. Yet he testified that SHAC USA had not encourage him or influenced him to take these actions. Instead, he had been moved to action after seeing the undercover videos. He further testified that black faxing and ECD were common knowledge and that he had read about them on a number of websites.

Feeling that the government had failed to make a strong case against the defendants the defense presented one day of witnesses and rested its case. After three days of deliberation, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts.

What Went Wrong?

How could these individuals be found guilty for speech? Most would say, welcome to Bush’s America. Welcome to post-9/11 America. Welcome to corporate America. But it is more complex than that.

The defendants started with the cards stacked against them. The court’s rulings from the beginning were not in their favor, and the federal government had the advantage of endless people power to work on the case, as well as months of wiretaps, emails and Internet postings, which could easily be misconstrued with a little help from the government.

Essentially the verdict in the trial came down to the question of whether the jury would look past the hand-waving and vague suspicions of the government, as well as past their own sense of camaraderie with the witnesses who testified that perfectly legal demonstrations terrified them and their families at their homes. The defense presented by the SHAC7’s team of attorneys was just not up to the task under these conditions.

What Now?

The defendants each face significant time in prison. The two convicted of only one charge may be sentenced to up to a year in federal prison. The others face sentences of five to ten years. Although legal precedents are clearly on the side of the SHAC7, appealing the verdict will be a lengthy—and costly—process. Defendants could be imprisoned for years before the verdict could be overturned.

The defendants desperately need our support—both financially, to cover the costs of the appeal process, and morally, to help them through these difficult and trying times. For more information on how you can help support the SHAC7 and reclaim our free speech rights, please visit www.SHAC7.com.