Transcript of Will Potter's Live ARZone Guest Chat

[Carolyn Bailey]

Transcript of Will Potter's Live ARZone Guest Chat

9 July 2011

6pm US Eastern Time

11pm UK Time

10 July 2011 

8am Australian Eastern Standard Time

 

 

Caroyn Bailey:

ARZone would like to welcome Will Potter as today’s Live Chat Guest.

 

Will Potter is an award-winning independent journalist based in Washington, D.C., who has become a leading authority on “eco-terrorism,” the environmental and animal rights movements, and civil liberties post 9/11.

Will is the author of “Green Is the New Red: An Insider’s Account of a Social Movement Under Siege”, available now from City Lights Books.

 

He has tracked how lawmakers and corporations have labeled animal rights and environmental activists as "eco-terrorists." And he has closely followed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, the Earth Liberation Front arrests in "Operation Backfire," and the landmark First Amendment case of the SHAC 7.

 

His reporting on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act has been recognized by Project Censored for outstanding investigative journalism,” as one of the top 25 “stories that didn’t make the news” in 2007. He has also received the Mark of Excellence award for feature writing, presented by the Society of Professional Journalists, in addition to recognition from Scripps Howard, Lantern Books and the Press Club of Dallas.

 

Will runs the Green is the New Red website, which is about how animal rights and environmental activists are being labelled "eco-terrorists," and what that means for the safety and freedom of us all at http://www.greenisthenewred.com/

 

He received his master’s in writing from the Johns Hopkins University and graduated summa cum laude from the University of Texas at Austin with a degree in journalism.

 

Will welcomes the opportunity to engage ARZone members today. Would you please join with me in welcoming him to ARZone?

 

Welcome, Will!

 

Ben Hornby:

Hey Will!

 

Barbara DeGrande:

Welcome Will. Thanks for your time!!

 

Sadia:

Hello Mr. Potter! How do you do? Nice to have you with us. Thank you and welcome.

 

Will:

Hey Will, hi from Will!

 

Brooke Cameron:

Welcome, Will!

 

Jesse Newman:

Hello Will!

 

Sky:

Hello

 

Suzanne Barker:

Hi Will

 

Erin Michaud:

Hello!

 

Tim Gier:

Hi Will

 

Roger Yates:

Welcome to ARZone, Will

 

Richard Twine:

Hi Will (was also at Brock Conference)

 

Mangus O’Shales:

Hi there Mr. Potter

 

Will Potter:

Hi everyone!

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Will will be responding to his pre-registered questions first, and then we’ll open the chat up for all members to engage him. Please refrain from interrupting Will during his first session, and feel free to send a private message to an admin if you wish to address him at any time. I’d now like to ask Will’s first question for today on behalf of Tammy McLeod who is unable to be here. Will, what was the most surprising thing you learned doing the research to write your book?

 

Will Potter:

Hi Tammy. Thanks for your question. Most of my work has been focused on new laws and new court cases, but I knew that this had been going on for decades. However, I was surprised by some of my research into the early days of these anti-activist campaigns. In particular, I was surprised at how many state-level laws were on the books as far back as the mid 1980s. The rise of the modern animal rights and environmental movements was clearly accompanied, step by step, by an escalation backlash by corporations and industry. 

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Will! Jason Ward has the next question but is working today, so Roger Yates will ask on his behalf, thanks Roger.

 

Roger Yates:

This is Jason's Q - Would you please explain for our members who are the American Legislative Exchange Council, who funds them and why.

 

Will Potter:

That’s a great question. ALEC is a group everyone needs to know about (not just in the animal rights movement, either). ALEC is a group that exists to pass state-level legislation. Here’s how it works: state lawmakers are ALEC “members,” and they receive corporate sponsorships to attend ALEC conferences (where corporations pay for recreational activities, Broadway shows, dinners, etc.) ALEC is funded by corporations that, in exchange for paying thousands of dollars, are allowed a seat at the table at these conferences, where they draft model legislation. The legislation is then carried home by the state lawmakers, and introduced across the country. The results of this corporate sponsorship are not surprising. Model legislation to deregulate the energy (drafted by Enron), model legislation to privatize prisons (drafted by the private prison lobbyists), union-busting bills (introduced in Wisconsin recently and elsewhere) and model “eco-terrorism” legislation created by the industries targeted by animal rights and environmental activists. It’s also important to note that ALEC was founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich—a conservative activist who famously coined the term “moral majority” for Jerry Falwell—in order to take his culture war to statehouses. It’s part of a much broader agenda targeting multiple social movements.

 

Roger Yates:

Thanks for that, Will. Next up is a question from a member who wanted it asked on her behalf, so it will be asked via the ARZone admin account.

 

Animal Rights Zone:

A shocked member of ARZone raised the issue of animal products in hardback books in the last week. Apparently the glue used in book production may be animal based. The member did not know whether this applies to paperback books as well, or whether there are non-animal glues used by particular publishers. He was essentially asking whether ‘animal-friendly authors’ take this sort of issue into account and attempt to ensure that their own books are animal glue-free. Would you know the answer to any of this in relation to your own publications?

 

Will Potter:

Thanks Roger. The Harvard University Press had a good blog post answering these questions. (http://harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2010/06/are-hup-books... ) Nearly all recently published books use synthetic glue. 

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Will! Next up is a question from Barbara DeGrande. When you're ready, thanks, Barb!

 

Barbara DeGrande:

Thank you Carolyn! The ACLU did not oppose the AETA; do you have any idea why they would not oppose such an affront to individual liberty? Does this have significance for animal rights activists in general?

 

Will Potter:

Hi Barbara! I previously worked in the ACLU’s legislative office, and I know that they are constantly fighting back waves of legislation that threaten civil liberties. Unfortunately, they focused on other legislation rather than the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Obviously I strongly disagree, and I think the ACLU really dropped the ball on this one, but I say this to help put the issue in context.

 

Meanwhile, though, local ACLU offices have been great on these issues (the Pennsylvania affiliate led the fight against an “eco-terror” bill in that state). And the national offices are involved in a lawsuit against Communications Management Units (secretive political prisons that have housed animal rights and environmental activists).

 

Roger Yates:

Thanks again, Will. The next question comes from Professor Tim Gier - Tim....

Tim Gier:

In an interview you gave to NPR on the topic of the video taping of animal agriculture by groups such as Mercy For Animals (http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/may/27/making-journalism-illegal/tra... ), you said: “these organizations are documenting what’s truly standard industry practice. And I think that should be the takeaway of this, is that the standard industry practices, when exposed to the public, are just as egregious and just as offensive.” Do you think the message that what is shown on these types of videos is really routine and not at all exceptional gets through to the public? Or do you think most people see that kind of abuse as an aberration? 

 

Will Potter:

Hi Tim. Glad you heard the NPR interview! It’s wonderful that they covered this. To answer your question, I think it really depends on the particular media outlet and the particular viewer. There have been so many high-profile investigations of this type in recent months, by Mercy for Animals and other groups, that I think it’s increasingly difficult to rationalize this as “exceptions to the rule” rather than the rule itself. Industry groups clearly continue to try to spin these abuses as aberrations, but I think those sound bites are increasingly difficult for the general public to swallow, and will become even more so as these investigations continue. 

 

Tim Gier:

I have a follow-up about something you mentioned in that same interview, if that's ok?

 

Will Potter:

Absolutely

 

Tim Gier:

Thanks! In that NPR interview I asked you about, you said that animal rights groups are “fundamentally challenging, in my opinion, what it means to be a human being.” What do you mean? 

 

Will Potter:

I believe animal rights and environmental activists are directly challenging what, for most people, is never questioned: that human beings have the right to use other species and the natural world in whatever ways they see fit. It is a challenge to the idea that the interests of humans are inherently more important, more valuable, than the interests of non-human animals. If those beliefs take root, it raises philosophical questions of what it means to be a human being (in that we must reevaluate our moral framework) and pragmatic questions (in that this reevaluation necessitates lifestyle and cultural changes).

 

Tim Gier:

Thank you Will, I agree with you, "animal rights" is a truly revolutionary idea. Next up is Ben Hornby, Ben, go ahead please!

 

Ben Hornby:

Thank you Tim! Hi, Will, thanks for being here with us today! Do you find that people confuse your criticism of government action as support for violence and, if so, what do you say to them? 

 

Will Potter:

Hi Ben! Great question! I sometimes hear that from people who have no interest in any actual discussion, and just want to smear or attack. For the most, part, though, that hasn’t been an issue. I’ve found that people can easily make such a distinction. I emphasize that I’m not arguing that illegal tactics should not be illegal; I’m arguing that, regardless of how you feel about tactics or these movements in general, people shouldn’t be singled out for disproportionate punishment because of their political beliefs. It’s an issue of fairness and of checks and balances on government power, and I think most people instantly recognize that.

 

Ben Hornby:

Thanks for your insightful response!

 

Barbara DeGrande:

Next up is our own Carolyn Bailey - Carolyn?

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Barb! Hi Will! You noted in your video interview [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyPsEPhfJc4&feature=player_embe...] that acts such as blowing up a building, stealing other animals and spray painting a slogan on the street are criminal acts. You said that there are no new crimes, but by labelling these crimes as terrorist activity, it increases the profile, increases the resources that may be available and the attention given from law enforcement and prosecutors. I can understand people being frustrated and angry over this misuse of the word “terrorism.” How would you label someone who, believing they are acting on behalf of other animals and the “animal movement”, were to send a nail bomb to a person they considered an “exploiter”? A nail bomb designed to explode when opened, possibly, by children. Would you class this as an act of terror? If not, could you give an example of an act you would agree was an act of terror, performed by an activist, if possible, please?

 

Will Potter:

Hi Carolyn. Thanks for your question (and for inviting me to this chat!).

 

In my book I discuss some of the shared characteristics among the many definitions of terrorism in use by state, federal, and international law enforcement, and I also look at the reasons why it has been so difficult to reach any universal definition. More broadly, though, what most discussions on this topic omit is that the application of the word “terrorism” to a crime depends solely on the perspective of people in power. In other words, the problem is not necessarily that the term is “misused,” because there is no proper use of the word other than as a weapon against one’s opponents. I think that’s important to remember in discussions like this. For example, I have no doubt that the scenario you raise above would be labeled as terrorism if committed by animal rights activists, but I doubt it would be treated similarly if committed by an anti-abortion activist or militia group. Whether or not this scenario would meet a legal definition of terrorism would depend on additional information, such as the intent of the person responsible. The courts have been wildly inconsistent in how the label is applied to horrible crimes like this by other movements.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Will. I think if someone was to send a nail bomb to me I would regard it as an act of terror, and I would think their intent was very clear. I understand there are diffierent interpretations of the word, but I tend to use the definition in a less political way than others. Done, and thanks!

 

Roger Yates:

Next up is Barbara DeGrande with a question.... Barb.....

 

Barbara DeGrande:

Thank you, Roger! Recent arrests of twelve activists in Spain have heightened awareness and concern for the rights of protestors. Any advice for grassroots animal rights activists during these difficult times?

 

Will Potter:

Hi Barbara. The arrest of activists in Spain (and here’s some background if people are not familiar: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/spain-animal-rights-terrorism-arrests-igualdad-animal/4970/)

was undeniably a response to the effective work of two above-ground organizations. I know stories like this can be intimidating and even overwhelming-- that’s the point. They’re not just about the activists arrested, they’re about scaring everyone paying attention into submission. These tactics are intended to instill fear, but I think it’s important to remember that these tactics are also *motivated* by fear. These industries are clearly threatened by the relentless and effective campaigning of groups like Igualdad Animal and Equanimal (and in the states by groups like Mercy For Animals). Corporations are clearly afraid of the general public becoming aware of what goes on behind closed doors. In light of that, I think my only advice to grassroots activists during these difficult times would be to remember that this crackdown is due to activists being a “threat” -- being effective.

 

Kate:

Great answer. Thanks Will.

 

Barbara DeGrande:

Thanks Will. Sounds like the main thing is not to stop and not to be intimidated.

 

Roger Yates:

Next up is another question from Tim Gier - Prof...

 

Tim Gier:

Will, I don’t support the use of violence but I can understand why some people, passionate about what they see as a holocaust and frustrated by the lack of progress in ending it, resort to violent acts. Would you talk about how you think “the movement” ought to be responding when violence is committed in its name?

 

Will Potter:

Hi Tim. First I should say that I think we need to be very clear about how the word violence is used. To me, and I think to most people, the word violence is associated with physical violence, not sabotaging property. Lives are infinitely more valuable than panes of glass or broken cages, and I think our language should reflect that. I think what you’re getting at, though, is a bigger question of how activists respond publicly to tactics they may not support, may not want to be associated with, or both. I think that’s something that is up to each individual, and not a question I can answer universally. However I can speak in the context of my research, in which I’ve seen that disagreements in opinions on these issues are frequently exploited, and encouraged, by politicians and corporations seeking to divide social movements. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and similar laws were always passed by pressuring mainstream groups to condemn any illegal activity whatsoever; aboveground activists are made to fear that if they merely speak up, in theoretically defense of certain tactics, that they will be treated the same as those actually committing the acts. The challenge moving forward, in my opinion, is for the movement to find a way to critically evaluate tactics, and speak honestly about them, without falling into this trap.

 

Tim Gier:

Thanks Will, may I ask a quick follow-up? 

 

Will Potter:

Sure Tim

 

Tim Gier:

What you're saying is, if I'm reading you correctly, is that the tactics themselves may be of less importance than the context into which "the movement" places them, is that about right?

 

Will Potter:

Yes. And to put it another way: I think the movement tends to discuss tactics in isolation, and in sweeping universal terms. One of the main things that was very clear in my research is that you can't divorce tactics from the political climate in which they operate.

 

Tim Gier:

Thank you again, Will. Roger Yates has the next question for you, Dr. Yates...?

 

Roger Yates:

Thanks Tim... (I certainly agree that every social movement needs to find ways of critically evaluating tactics) I have recently published a journal article on the criminalisation of peaceful protest in Ireland in which I suggested that recent arrests of protesters outside a fur shop may have marked the beginning of a serious clampdown on animal advocacy seen elsewhere. Irish activists often cast jealous eyes toward what goes on in Britain but I imagine the authorities are keen to ensure that animal advocacy never grows to levels seen just over the Irish Sea in England. There has also been a concerted effort in recent years in Ireland to bring together many animal user industries in an organised countermovement designed to oppose and discredit Irish animal advocacy. From what I understand of the thesis in Green is the New Red, I imagine you recognise this pattern of events and have seen it many times. What else should Irish advocates look out for - for example, you have talked recently about the efforts being made to infiltrate animal advocacy groups. Any advice for animal advocates in Ireland and beyond?

 

Will Potter:

Hi Roger, thanks for your question and for your article. I actually have a digital copy here on my computer, and look forward to reading it soon! 

 

Roger Yates:

:-)

 

Will Potter:

You’re absolutely right, the tactics that developed in the United States have been “exported” in many ways to other countries, such as Austria and Spain. This is due in part to a concerted effort by both law enforcement and corporations. For example, EUROPOL has briefed international law enforcement on “eco-terrorism” including undercover investigations (http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/europol-undercover-investigati... ). In the Austrian case, it was revealed that U.S. and U.K. law enforcement were in contact with Austrian special police. During the passage of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a GlaxoSmithKline executive from the U.K. testified about the international threat of animal rights activists. In short: corporations are interested in free markets, not free people, and the globalization of activist repression reflects that.

 

Some things that Irish activists and others should be on the lookout for include the sort of coalition you mentioned. Industry groups may begin with coordinated public relations campaigns. It is extremely important not to dismiss PR efforts labeling activists as “terrorists.” For years in the United States, activists laughed at this, or shrugged it off because there were more pressing concerns. However, these PR efforts are used to buttress lobbying campaigns. Another tactic to watch out for is the creation of a “special commission” or “task force” within any branch of government to prepare a report on lawbreaking by animal rights groups. Such activities may seem innocuous on their own, but politicians and corporations will then use these reports as “evidence” of the threat, and call for new legislation or increased police repression.

 

Roger Yates:

Thanks so much for that thorough answer Will. On corporations and free markets - they want free markets when it suits them; not so free when it does not... The next question comes from Brooke Cameron... 

 

Brooke Cameron:

Thank you Professor Yates! Hi, Will, it's a pleasure to "meet" you. When animal activists use arson, the story the media tells is about “domestic terrorism,” not the horrific animal abuse that occurs in these buildings. When this occurs, the vital educational purpose has been lost. Do you think arson is an effective form of activism, and does it matter that every arson attack will inevitably kill countless rats, mice, birds and insects in the process?

Will Potter:

Hi Brooke. Thanks for your question. In my research on the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front arsons in “Operation Backfire,” it was difficult to assess a question like this. In many cases, the targets of arson used insurance money to rebuild. The prisoners I spoke to were struggling with these questions as well, because arson is such a potentially dangerous tactic. On the other hand, in some cases (like Cavel West), the arson shut the operation down. And these radical tactics clearly changed the national discussion of some environmental issues (particularly genetic engineering and SUVs). In short, it’s incredibly hard to evaluate what tactics have been effective, because no tactic exists in a vacuum. In response to the first part of your comment, though, I would note that the “domestic terrorism” label is applied to a wide range of conduct beyond arson (including undercover investigations, home protests, rescuing animals, and even civil disobedience).

 

Brooke Cameron:

May I ask a follow-up please, Will?

 

Will Potter:

Sure, thanks Brooke

 

Brooke Cameron:

Will, do you think arson is effective considering that any arson attack will inevitably be killing many nonhuman animals such as birds, rats, mice and insects? Thanks.

 

Will Potter:

To be very clear, in my work I am not advocating any tactics. I am answering based on my interviews with a wide range of activists and prisoners. People who support arson against property would argue that it is needed to stop a greater harm.

 

Brooke Cameron:

Thanks for your reply, Will. I appreciate it.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks very much, Will! The next question, and the last in the formal session fo today, will be asked by Tim Gier. If there are any further questions for Will, please feel free to send a private message to an admin with your intent.

 

Tim Gier:

When I think of the Red Scare of the 1950’s, I am reminded that what started out ostensibly as “anti-communist national security” initiative quickly devolved into a full frontal assault on the civil liberties of potentially all Americans. Do you believe that people within the animal rights movement appreciate the threat of the “Green Scare”?

 

Will Potter:

When I testified against the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act in 2006, there was very, very little awareness of that legislation or about the broader campaigns being waged against the movement. Compared to a few years ago, the animal rights movement today is much more aware of the nature of this threat, and more prepared to fight back (we saw great examples of this after the AETA 4 arrests, and just recently after the Spanish 12 arrests). And compared to political activists during the Red Scare, I think activists today are much more aware of the strategies that corporations and politicians are using. However, there is a very long way to go.

 

Many animal rights activists may have heard bits and pieces about the topics we have discussed today, but to move forward effectively I think everyone needs to be more informed about both contemporary and historical experiences. For instance, I think the question Roger Yates raised speaks to this perfectly. The tactics being used are not novel, they are not inventive, they are not magical: they are the same tactics that have been used in my eras and in my countries. The task before us is, I believe, two-fold. We need to educate the general public about the threats that this repression poses to their freedom and security, and we need to educate the animal rights movement about the specific tactics being used, so that we can respond effectively. 

 

Tim Gier:

Thanks Will, I've got another follow-up if that's okay?

 

Will Potter:

No problem, Tim. Go for it.

 

Tim Gier:

You mention that both the movement and the general publiic need to be educated about the threat of the Green Scare. Do you think that animal advocates generally think that because their cause is a moral and just one that they won't be subject to the kinds of reactionary forces you mention?

 

Will Potter:

I think activists are certainly shocked to learn the extent of this Green Scare, and the types of tactics that have become so pervasive. I can't say whether it's for the reason you mentioned, but I think there is truth to that. What's interesting is that I've found (particularly on speaking tours) that the general public really isn't that shocked. I think non-activists are well-aware of how much power corporations have over the government and the courts and when they find out about this Green Scare, it seems to confirm what they are already feeling. I think we need to remember that when reaching out to folks outside of the movement: they already "get it," in many ways.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks again, Will! I'd like now to open the chat up to all ARZone members to address Will. First up with a question in the open part of our chat will be Maynard Clark. Please go ahead when you're ready, Maynard.

 

Maynard S. Clark:

Thank you, Will, for being with us.  The VSDC (Vegetarian Society of DC) have given the vegetarian movement an animal rights face, although (according to Partridge and Amato 1990) the overwhelming majority of vegetarians in America endorse the meatless persuasion for health reasons, not pro-animal reasons. In your opinion, is the terrorist image a bad rap that disingenuous lobbyists for bad values (like meat production and cruelty to animals) and their DC-based shills are giving to honest, hard-working, clean-living vegetarians like me? Thank you And Will, Right On! They paint nonactivists as if we are activists. Even though activists are correct.

 

Will Potter:

The label "terrorist" is certainly used across wide swaths of people. Few are so bold as to call people terrorists for simply being vegan. However, veganism is most definitely seen as a threat to corporate interests. My favorite example of that is the CEO of KFC testifying before congress that PETA members are "corporate terrorists" and represent the threat of a "vegetarian nation."

Maynard S. Clark:
Threat?  Like the Seventh Day Adventists? The Jains?

 

Will Potter:

Corporations and politicians frequently describe this "threat" in similar ways: a cultural threat.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks Will!

 

Maynard S. Clark:

Thank you.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Barbara DeGrande would like to address you again next, thanks, Barb!

 

Barbara DeGrande:

Thank you, Carolyn. President Obama, before his election, was cast as a terrorist sympathizer by Sarah Palin. Since his election, it has been thus doubly disappointing to see the lack of a move towards restoring civil liberties and the country as a nation of law. With another presidential election on the horizon, what do you expect to happen regarding these politicized issues in the upcoming campaign? 

 

Will Potter:

I expect there will be very little attention paid to how the Obama administration has continued, and expanded, the policies of the Bush administration. Instead we'll see Republicans attempt to say that he is weak on national security, weak on terrorism. The real danger moving forward is that these policies have become normalized. Any questioning of them, or questioning of what we have lost since 9/11, has been lost. This isn't to say, though, that whoever is in office doesn't matter. I think a Sarah Palin (shudder) would of course be much, much worse than anyone in the Obama administration.

 

Roger Yates:

Thanks Will, next up is Brooke Cameron with an open question. Brooke

 

Brooke Cameron:

Will, you congratulated Paul Shapiro from the HSUS a few days ago for being part of a new legislation which will increase the cage size of battery hens to almost double their current size. This new size ~ 144 square inches and new name for battery cages ~ “enriched colony systems,” which will be phased in over 18 years, is being classed as a huge “victory”, yet scientists have established that a chicken needs about 198 sq. inches to turn around; about 138 sq. inches to stretch her wings, and 290 sq. inches to flap her wings. Could you explain why you consider this to be a “victory” for the hens, please? Thankyou!

 

Will Potter:

Brooke -- Paul Shapiro is a very old friend of mine. This has been something that he and many other people I respect have worked on for quite some time. My comment was a quick note on Facebook supporting his work

 

Brooke Cameron:

I appreciate that Paul and all others working for the HSUS are good people. I just don't understand how this could be regarded as a victory or supported, but thank you for your reply.

 

Will Potter:

You should talk to them about this.

 

Brooke Cameron:

Thank you, I will.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Will. The last question for today will be from Roger Yates, thanks, Roger

 

Roger Yates:

Hi Will. Just to tease out a little more in terms of Brooke’s questions about arson – I appreciate that you are not speaking for yourself but via those you have interviewed. However, is it not the case that the use of arson has always been controversial within “MDA circles” precisely due to the deaths caused by it. For example, ALF co-founder Ronnie Lee was worried about this issue

and warned people to check buildings very carefully for nesting birds. You cite those who take a utilitarian approach – they’ll apparently sacrifice some other animals for a greater good. But others, especially those who adopt a rights-based approach would not. Has this controversy not been reflected in your interviews?

 

Will Potter:

I have spoken with many people who have raised serious concerns about the risks arson poses to firefighters and first responders. I have not heard much critique of the tactic on the grounds that it may kill insects.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Will. We have time for one more question which will be asked by Tim Gier. Please go ahead, Tim, when you're ready.

 

Tim Gier:

What do you think about online groups who talk about raising armies and “taking it to the streets”?

 

Will Potter:

I think online groups often become quite divorced from the political reality that exists beyond the computer screen.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Will!

 

Will Potter:

Thanks Carolyn, and thanks everyone for taking part in this discussion!

 

Tim Gier:

I agree Will. Thanks for your time tonight!

 

Carolyn Bailey:

At this time I would like to sincerely thank you, Will, for giving us your time today. ARZone appreciate it very much!

 

Will:

:-) thanks Will

 

Sky:

Thankyou Dr. Potter.

 

Barbara DeGrande:

Thank you Will, for your time.

 

Suzanne Barker:

Thanks Will!!

 

Mangus O’Shales:

Yes, thanks very much!

 

Brooke Cameron:

Thanks for being here, Will. I too appreciate you giving us time out of your busy schedule!

 

Ben Hornby:

Thanks, Will.

 

Maynard S. Clark:

Yes.  Yes.  Thank you so much, Dr. Potter.  Live long and prosper!

 

Will Potter:

It's a wonderful community you have here, and I'm honored to be part of it

 

-------

 

ARZone exists to promote rational discussion about our relations with other animals and about issues within the animal advocacy movement. Please continue the debate after chats by starting a forum discussion or making a point under a transcript.

 

-------

 

[Tim Gier]

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/journalism-labeled-extremist-t...

Guilty By Association

It is not surprising to see a government sentencing memo try to connect a defendant to “extremists.” I’ve covered this in many, many prosecutions. The intention is to use guilt by association to secure additional prison time. For example, prosecutors will say that Joe Defendant is friends with drug dealers, or that Jane Defendant’s family are in a gang.

In this case, the government labels journalism as extremism.

Prosecutors say that since my article mentioned Halliday in a photo caption, it means he placed himself “above the law” and violated an order to have “No association with animal group[s] A.L.F., E.L.F., Vegan Straight Edge (VSE).”