Donate and support the AETA4!

I love Santa Cruz, more and raised here. But only in the Santa Cruz does "freedom of speech" become equated with "freedom to terrorize families and firebomb houses". There are plenty of ways to express opinions that are protected under the first amendment. These people seek to defend themselves by misconstruing the principles upon which the nation was founded.

"Ghandi" must have read a different indictment because I didn't see the words fire, bomb, or firebomb anywhere in the indictment. I see the worlds "demonstration" and "chalk."

Demonstrations are generally legal, if not always welcome.

Chalk sounds harmless, as do brochures, which are also at issue here

So the questions around the demonstrations are what are the limits, and did they cross a line that the community will not tolerate.

With chalk messages and brochures, are their any limits to free speech, and are the messages and brochures still harmless and protected free speech if they contain direct or implied threats?

And did the AETA4 (or whatever) tresspass on private property and assault someone? Again, I'd rather give my money to PETA than these marginal personalities but that's just me, my opinion and my wallet.

There's no mention of an assault anywhere in the indictment either.

This is not harmless chalk, free speach, and informational pamphlets. This is harassment, hate speech, and scaring little children:

The indictment is linked to this piece of red (green?) journalism.

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/animal-rights-activists-indicted-as-terrorists-for-home-protests/1657/

Um, lines 1-5 on Page 3 is just verbatim what the law (18 U.S.C. 43) reads. Doesn't mean that they actually are guilty, or on par with people who fly planes into buildings, or that the law isn't unconstitutional.

Yes this is an indictment not a verdict. It does describe assault, in contrast to the post by "No mention". Assault is a broad term describing behaviors that have no political content all the way to complete political content. When law abiding people are assaulted at their homes solely for their beliefs, the government of the people may rightly consider it an illegal political action. We have abundant appropriate civil means to express ourselves that do not include abusing people who think differently than we do. That has clearly happened here. Chalked words are not innocent simply because they are written in chalk when individuals are targeted in this way. The indictment is one step. But it is not absent of a description of a violent confrontation designed to intimidate a family who are not breaking the law.

So let's not pretend this is all a big mistake and that home demonstrations do not need to be regulated.