Committee kills bill protecting animal researchers

Chet Brokaw,Agweek
Published: 01/21/2009

PIERRE, S.D. — A measure that sought to give university researchers and workers extra protection from terrorist acts by animal-rights extremists was rejected Wednesday by a South Dakota House committee.

The State Affairs Committee voted 11-2 to kill the bill after panel members said current law already makes it a crime to commit all the acts covered in the measure. Some said the measure also went too far in closing state government records and could have made it a crime for a newspaper to publish a story about a research project.

“Commonsense tells me existing criminal code must cover every aspect of this” said Rep. Charles Turbiville, R-Deadwood.

Supporters said the bill is needed because extremists in other states are stepping up the use of violence and intimidation in an effort to shut down research projects that use ani-mals. Such terrorism is likely to spread to South Dakota, they said.

“People who had been content to firebomb the facilities are now going after the workers because it’s more effective,” said Jim Shekleton, the Board of Regents’ lawyer.

HB1078 was proposed by the Board of Regents to protect researchers and other university employees from extremists who oppose research using animals. Twenty agricultural organi-zations also sought to expand the measure to cover private research firms as well as farmers and ranchers.

The bill would have made it a Class 6 felony, carrying a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a $4,000 fine, to use threats, vandalism, property damage, harassment or intimida-tion to intentionally put those who work with animals in reasonable fear of death or serious injury to themselves or family members.

It would also have made it a Class 1 misdemeanor, with a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $2,000 fine, to intimidate, annoy or alarm animal workers, order goods or services in their name to ruin their credit rating, or publish information about the workers and their families.

In addition, people who work with animals could have sought court orders banning publi-cation of information about them and could have sued those who committed acts of terrorism against them.

Another provision would have provided that the names, addresses and telephone numbers of researchers and information about research facilities would not be considered public records.

Shekleton said people who work with animals need protection because animal-rights ex-tremists have turned to violence in recent years.

The measure was based on language already in federal law and in laws passed by several other state, Shekleton said. Terrorists have used freedom of information requests to get government information that helps them find researchers and workers in animal facilities, he said.

He acknowledged that state university Web sites already contain a lot of information about animal research facilities and the staff members who work in them. But he said home ad-dresses and phone numbers should be protected so that at least terrorists cannot make state agencies do their research to locate targets.

Brenda Foreman, representing the 20 organizations in Ag Unity, said the measure was needed to send a message that South Dakota will not tolerate terrorism against those raising animals or using them for research.

Animal-rights activists can disagree with the livestock industry as long as they follow the law, she said.

But Steve Willard of the South Dakota Broadcaster Association said the measure would establish penalties for actions that are already crimes, and terrorists don’t develop plans based on what is legal.

The bill’s language also goes too far by seeking to make it illegal to annoy someone, Willard said.

Passing the bill would mean terrorists have already won, Willard said. “The message is: Yeah, we know you’re out there and we’re afraid of you.”

David Bordewyk of the South Dakota Newspaper Association said the proposal could mean newspaper reporters and editors become terrorists just for publishing a story about a uni-versity research project. Newspapers also might be prohibited from writing about problems in constructing a new university research building, he said.

Robert Doody, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in South Dakota, said the bill also might violate the constitutional guarantee of free speech. The U.S. Su-preme Court has said speech can be prohibited only if it is likely to produce imminent law-lessness, he said.