Why is the U.S. Congress whittling away at our right to freedom of speech?

Nov 29, 2006

So now apparently the government is concerned about consumer actions bringing down the economy. They’re so concerned that they’ve recently passed a law through both houses of Congress that makes it a crime to cause any business classified as an “animal enterprise” to suffer a loss of profit.

Let’s stop and translate that one.

If this new bill is not vetoed by the President, the following may come to pass:
An individual finds out, through completely legal means, that a particular company engages in business practices that cause offence. The company’s research division does not use humane testing methods, or they employ animal testing; or their products cause demonstrable harm to the environment...something. The person spreads information about these objectionable practices, either by creating a website or by posting about it in their blog; and urges other people to think about not boycotting that company because of X. Over months, the Company slowly loses credibility. People begin buying from suppliers other than Company, and Company eventually reports a significant loss one quarter. Company is classified as an animal enterprise (and just what in the hell does that phrase mean?!??)...and under the provisions of this new law, Company could then sue Individual.

I can think of oh so many ways this can be harmful to consumers. Whatthefuck...!?

Freedom of speech is a right guaranteed by the first amendment to the US Constitution. There are exceptions to this, such as the old adage about yelling “Fire!!” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. In the example I just mentioned, such an action would cause people to rapidly leave the building, possibly causing serious damage to other people in the scramble to get away from the (alleged) danger. A person reporting on the actions of a company with the express purpose of organizing a boycott can cause financial harm — but not direct danger to life and limb. The parallels between the two situations are hazy at best.

I can understand a company being pissed if someone claims that they heard of the company’s inhumane animal testing and rampant pollution — but those facts aren’t true. A legal expert would know better, but I believe that there are already slander (spoken, unjust, inaccurate statements) and libel (published unjust statements) contingencies in place for all persons and companies. So why this law? And why specifically targeting “animal enterprises”?

Keywords: | laws | civil rights |
Posted by Laughing Muse • 466 views • Share this link • Newer • Older