Defending the Truth

Yes this is written into the law, under Section 43, Force, violence and threats. So once again, you read but did you comprehend. Since this is under the section involving force, violence and threats please explain to me where peaceful protesting fits into the category. Peaceful protesting is not the use of force, it is not the use of violence, nor is it the use of threats. So immediately we see the problem



Yes, because the punishments are for acts committed under Section 43 entitled Force, Violence or Threats. Again tell me where does peaceful protest fit into one of these words. It doesn't, so again we see reading but no comprehending.

First if Congress was in seesion why were the Congressmen not there? If you know Congress is going to be in session and you are a Congressman, why are you not at your job?

No the previous law did not protect individuals and their property, the previous law only protected places of business.

Groups like Greenpeace should worry, instead of funding groups like ELF and ALF they should spend more time worrying about already following established environmental laws. Perhaps that will serve them better the next time they come to Ketchikan, Alaska. The last time they were here they actually broke more environmental laws than they were trying to have enacted, and then ran away to Seattle to try and avoid being caught.

Yes, especially if there picketing is not an act of force, violence or threat.

Really, but did you comprehend what you were reading? Obviously the meaning of the words and the sections under which they were written passed you by during your reading.

dmk

I think the law can be applied to peaceful protesters if they cost the company money. All the company(or government) has to do is say the protest was aimed at costing them money and the law coud be applied. I understand your points but I see no reason why this would even be thought up if the present laws are in place to prosecute anyone who is breaking them.
Our interpetations differ. I don't think that is going to change so lets just say we agree we disagree.

If you're referring to my pre-determined mindset that a company that abuses animals in not legitimate, then you are correct.

But let's say that your scenario does happen, and a PETA campaign does harm a legitimate business. I believe the point is that there are already laws written that would hold PETA liable that are not vague and all-encompassing. Thus my theory that this is legislation written by and for businesses that are not legitimate.

And nothing will deal with the adulteration of food and drugs in the U.S. under the 1906 law that makes it so?



HHS NEWS: NEW STAMP HONORS THE FIRST COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL FOOD AND DRUG LAW

WE ARE BEING Poisoned BY DRUG COMPANIES AGAINST THE LAW!

Maybe you are, but I'm not.

Do you know what your eating?

WTO hands off our food!

The Non-GMO project

http://www.mercola.com/2001/jun/2/gmo_crops.htm

Article if you don't want to give your e-mail!

GMO Crops Are An Accident Waiting to Happen


A group of Canadian scientists wrote a letter to the Toronto Globe and Mail which warned that genetic drift or pollution from plants gene-spliced to produce medical drugs or industrial chemicals is a disaster waiting to happen.

The letter--signed by retired Agriculture Canada scientist Bert Christie, former McMaster University science dean Dennis McCalla, McGill University animal-science professor Dick Beames, and Dr. Hugh Lehman, an expert in agricultural ethics at the University of Guelph--warns that there is a "high probability" that a StarLink-type contamination incident could occur because of open-air testing and cultivation of crop varieties spliced to produce pharmaceutical drugs or industrial chemicals.

In other words, a person could be eating corn or soybeans or some other common food and instead get a dose of a powerful medical vaccine or drug, or a toxic dose of an industrial chemical.

Toronto Globe and Mail Newspaper May 2, 2001

My posts may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. For more information please review Title 17, Sec. 107 of the U.S. Code.

IMPORTANT NOTICE - PLEASE READ: By reading this , you indicate that you possess sufficient grey matter to both comprehend and accept that my comments are not enthusiastically endorsed by the ( current) United States Government and/or its Executive Branch.

Fair enough.

It's probably a little like Hate-Crimes Legislation. On one level, they're totally un-necessary. If you kick the crap out of a guy who is black, you should be prosecuted for assault and battery - regardless of his or your skin color.