Lauren Journet
Professor Shirk
Global Politics of Terrorism
31 March 2018
The Right to Terrorism
The small town of Morris, Illinois was home to one of the country’s mink farms. In the year 2013, two gentlemen snuck onto the property, opening all 2,000 cages containing the minks. Kevin Johnson and Tyler Lang set the animals free in protest to the farm and were soon taken to court. They were charged with breaking the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which made non-violent property crime a federal offense. This act also made the crime have the same punishments as terrorism does. The discussion surrounding Johnson and Lang’s actions poses the question: did Kevin Johnson and Tyler Lang have a constitutional right to commit this act?
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This amendment protects peaceful assembly, synonymous with peaceful protest. While activist Kevin Johnson may have disrupted the mink production of the company, he did not physically harm anyone. One could go as far as to argue that letting the animals free was an act of peace, making his actions completely acceptable according to the United States Constitution.
When applied to another case with California teenagers who brutally killed 900 chickens on a farm, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act did not apply. The court argued that the teens did not have a motive, unlike Johnson, and therefore could not be charged. But the motive behind Johnson and Lang’s actions was one of animal rights and protection. After being out of jail for one year, John responded to his situation saying that the legislation was ”written and paid for by the agriculture and pharmaceutical industries. It federalizes non-violent property crime and punishes it as terrorism – but only when the perpetrators are motivated by the belief that animals deserve to live free from violence.” Johnson’s motives came from a place of peace and liberation, and they were protected under the Constitution according to the above amendment.
The situation is reminiscent of the discussion that the Earth Liberation Force spurred during the 1990s and early 2000s. During this time, a group of peaceful protesters turned to acts of arson in order to get their message about a greener planet across. They burned down and destroyed building owned by companies in the lumber industry. They too were labeled terrorist. Their motivations, much like Johnson and Lang’s, were for the betterment of the Earth. The Earth Liberation Force did, however, turn to violent actions with their pre-planned arson attacks. But Johnson and Lang’s actions were non-violent and thus protected under the Constitution.
It is one thing to recognize that Johnson ruined the Morris, Illinois mink farm’s chance at business. But three years in prison and paying the owners $200,000 in restitution surely seems like an appropriate punishment, hefty enough to deter Johnson from ever committing a similar crime. Johnson states that the court has shifted from a point of justice to the use of the word terrorism to “describe nearly any activity of which it disapproves – and emboldened lawmakers around the country who are beginning to do just that.” If this action really is a source of domestic terrorism, the Constitution needs to be reconsidered. For the very first Amendment verifies the rights of the protest and assembly, and thus this act of terrorism.
Works Cited
“Feds: Activists Released 2,000 Mink From Fur Farm In Morris.” CBS Chicago, 10 July 2014,
chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/feds-activists-released-2000-mink-from-fur-farm-in-
orris/.
Johnson, Kevin. “I Released 2,000 Minks from a Fur Farm. Now I'm a Convicted Terrorist |
Kevin Johnson.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 15 Nov. 2017,
Meisner, Jason. “Animal Activist Who Released Thousands of Minks Gets 3 Years in Prison.”
Chicagotribune.com, 2 Mar. 2016,
0160229-story.html.
Hi Lauren,
ReplyDeleteI think you do a really nice job at connecting the two articles together under a common theme of not only environmental issues, but forms of protest as well. Using the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to demonstrate the inconsistencies in both cases was a really good idea. You didn't have to do this for your posts, but I'm curious to know if any other U.S. Amendments were also applicable for these cases. (I do not claim to be a budding Constitutional scholar, as I'm on the IR track, but this may be something to look into as well.) Overall very clear and solid argument.
Lauren,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think 'terrorism' is used here? Who benefits? Even thinking beyond these acts of supposed terror, can we get effective environmental policy so long as the dynamics are at work?
Lauren,
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a great blog post, as you found a way to argue that the First Amendment could be interpreted to verify our right to protest, which in some of these environmental cases has been equated to terrorist acts. This was an aspect of the domestic terror conversation that I believe we briefly discussed during class, but I thought your focus on the discrepancies was well written and presented all sides of the debate. Protecting individual freedom can and often does come into conflict with corporate interest, which leads me to the question of how we can moderate this as a society. Overall this was another well done post!
Lauren, this was an interesting post to read. Are you arguing that there is in fact times when acts that could potentially be considered terrorism are condoned under the constitution? I am curious to see what you would have said about the courts maybe abusing the term terrorism and using it to their own benefit in making a statement against any acts they disapprove of to deter any future outbreaks of the same act from happening again.
ReplyDeleteHi Zoe!
ReplyDeleteIn this post I was, in fact, trying to argue that there are examples of terrorism that could potentially be condoned under the constitution. While writing this, I did not really focus my thoughts on the courts but I would still like to respond briefly to your comment! If the courts were abusing the term terrorism, I feel like we would be in an extremely dangerous political realm. Just thinking about the conversations around banning Muslims during the 2016 election, this stigmatized the entire race so much. If the United States made statements deeming non-terrorist acts terrorist merely out of their own political gain, this stigmatization would only be amplified. And that's what would scare me, that's what would make politics dangerous.