March 5 at 1:55pm ·
We are very disappointed to announce that the judge in the case of two animal rights activists indicted on terrorism charges for allegedly releasing thousands of animals from fur farms has denied CCR’s motion to dismiss the case. The judge provided one bit of comfort by interpreting the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act narrowly to prohibit causing loss to only *tangible*property, such as committing vandalism. Sadly, since animals are considered “property” under the law, saving their lives, as was alleged in this case, is still deemed “terrorism” under the judge’s interpretation. For more information on the case, see: http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/US-v-Johnson
We are very disappointed to announce that the judge in the case of two animal rights activists indicted on terrorism charges for allegedly releasing thousands of animals from fur farms has denied CCR’s motion to dismiss the case. The judge provided one bit of comfort by interpreting the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act narrowly to prohibit causing loss to only *tangible*property, such as committing vandalism. Sadly, since animals are considered “property” under the law, saving their lives, as was alleged in this case, is still deemed “terrorism” under the judge’s interpretation. For more information on the case, see: http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/US-v-Johnson