BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    




                                                                            
           
          Date of Hearing:  April 17, 2008

                           ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
                                  Dave Jones, Chair
                    AB 2296 (Mullin) - As Amended:  April 1, 2008

                              As Proposed to Be Amended
           
          SUBJECT  :  ANIMALS: CALIFORNIA ANIMAL ENTERPRISE PROTECTION ACT

           KEY ISSUES  : 

          1)SHOULD CAREFULLY CIRCUMSCRIBED PROTECTIONS BE ENACTED IN AN  
            EFFORT TO BETTER PROTECT ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN THE FACE OF AN  
            INCREASING NUMBER OF REPORTS OF FRIGHTENING ASSAULTS ON  
            ACADEMICS ENGAGED IN ANIMAL RESEARCH AND TESTING?

          2)SHOULD THE PROPOSED PROTECTIONS IN THIS BILL BE MORE CAREFULLY  
            LIMITED TO PROTECT UNIVERSITIES AND THEIR EMPLOYEES, AS  
            OPPOSED TO A LARGE NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL ENTITIES AS WELL?

          3)SHOULD THE COMMITTEE TAKE THE APPARENTLY UNPRECEDENTED STEP OF  
            GRANTING BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EMPLOYERS THEIR OWN SEPARATE  
            STANDING TO BRING LAW SUITS ON BEHALF OF EMPLOYEES FOR ACTS  
            THAT OCCUR OUTSIDE OF THE WORKPLACE, EVEN IF THOSE EMPLOYEES  
            CHOOSE NOT TO SUE THEMSELVES?

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
                                          
                                      SYNOPSIS
          
          In response to frightening and egregious attacks against  
          University of California animal research employees and their  
          families in their homes, this bill seeks to create more criminal  
          protections for prosecution of animal extremists as well as  
          broad and in some ways unprecedented new civil remedies for  
          those victimized as a result of their employment in the "animal  
          enterprise."  The breadth of "animal enterprise" extends to  
          commercial and nonprofit entities that are in some way arguably  
          engaged in animal research, testing and educational activities,  
          as specified.  Modeled after a broad-reaching federal law  
          enacted in 2006, the measure seeks to protect third and tertiary  
          parties from threats of violence or intimidation as a result of  

                                          1








                                                                            
           
          their connection to the animal enterprise.

          The measure is sponsored by the University of California (U.C.)  
          on behalf of its academics engaged in research that includes  
          animal research and testing.  In support of the bill, U.C.  
          provided the Committee with frightening and disturbing stories  
          of academics and their families reportedly facing literal  
          assault and battery at their homes by animal protection  
          activists clearly crossing the line from speech into egregious  
          criminal misconduct.  One such story reportedly involved a  
          well-publicized and patently outrageous attempted home invasion  
          just this past February by six masked animal rights extremists  
          at the home of a U.C. Santa Cruz faculty member who had used  
          mice in breast cancer research.  Another such set of incidents  
          reportedly occurred recently where Berkeley police have been  
          investigating a two-month string of animal rights related  
          vandalism at the homes of six U.C. Berkeley scientists.  The  
          names and addresses of the scientists were reportedly posted on  
          animal activist websites, along with graphic descriptions of the  
          academicians' alleged animal testing.

          To help combat this alarming reported trend against academic  
          freedom, U.C. is sponsoring this measure which contains an  
          unprecedented cadre of potential remedies and penalties.  These  
          include but are not limited to a broad new private right of  
          action for acts including nonviolent "intimidation" and  
          "attempted intimidation" of any person that has a connection to  
          or transacts business with an animal enterprise -to be available  
          not only to the employees of these entities, as well as their  
          families and co-residents -- with damages, both compensatory and  
          punitive, available, as well as the recovery of attorney's fees,  
          court costs, and the costs of expert witnesses.  Employees would  
          also be granted injunctive relief to have their names removed  
          from the Internet.  And perhaps most unusually, the measure  
          proposes creating a private right of action for  employers  of the  
          alleged victim described above - whether or not the employee  
          chooses to sue themselves - and the employers, not just academic  
          institutions but all private and public entities covered by the  
          bill - could also have standing to sue.
              
          In support of the bill and reflecting the broad call for new  
          protections by academic institutions, sponsor U.C. writes in  
          part that "Research involving the use of animals has contributed  

                                          2








                                                                            
           
          significantly to the discovery and development of critical  
          scientific breakthroughs and medical therapies? Animal research  
          can be an important step in determining whether a promising  
          therapy might be safe for human use.  Radiation therapy and  
          other cancer treatments, the development of vaccines, organ  
          transplantation, and many mental health treatments have all  
          resulted in part from work done on animals? Animal research is  
          subject to strict federal and state regulation designed to  
          ensure humane and ethical treatment of animals? When such work  
          is disrupted by the actions used by extreme animal rights  
          activists, the deleterious impact on important research can be  
          significant and can delay the development of greatly-needed and  
          potentially lifesaving therapies."  In opposition, civil  
          liberties groups like the ACLU and the Newspaper Publishers  
          Association complain that the bill raises serious constitutional  
          concerns, including that they feel it is overbroad by  
          potentially prohibiting the posting of truthful, accurate  
          information on the Internet, and risking the imposition of civil  
          and criminal liability for conduct that is commonly related to  
          public protest.  They state that there may indeed be competing  
          academic freedom rights that are worthy of new protections but  
          "that is not what is proposed by this legislation."  Animal  
          rights groups like the Humane Society of the United States also  
          assert in opposition to the bill that as currently drafted it  
          would regrettably have a chilling effect on lawful advocacy.

          This analysis raises a host of constitutional and policy  
          questions about the measure, as well as issues about its  
          breadth, while acknowledging the seriousness of the patent  
          threat to academic freedom that appears to be at the heart of  
          the sponsor's goals for the measure.  The analysis suggests that  
          the Committee may wish to consider the constitutional merits of  
          substantially narrowing the scope of the bill, including  
          significantly narrowing for whom the proposed new remedies are  
          provided, in order to more closely mirror the approaches of the  
          so-called "Evans Model" (referring to the path breaking bills  
          carried by Assemblywoman Evans of this Committee in this area of  
          the law, discussed in the analysis) which the Committee and the  
          Legislature have recently supported in their effort to narrowly  
          protect reproductive rights workers and public officials in  
          their execution of constitutionally-protected rights.    
                  
           SUMMARY  :  Seeks to enact new state crimes analogous to those  

                                          3








                                                                            
           
          created under the federal Animal Enterprise Protection Act  
          (AETA), and to create sweeping, and in some respects  
          unprecedented, new civil remedies and standing for any "animal  
          enterprise," as well as their employees and family members of  
          employees and any person who has a connection to, relationship  
          with or transaction with an animal enterprise.  Specifically,  
           this bill  :   

          1)Defines "animal enterprise as a nonprofit or academic research  
            enterprise that uses animals or animal products for education,  
            research, or testing, as well as any commercial entity  
            described in certain sections of the North American Industry  
            Classification System (NAICS) published by the United States  
            Census Bureau (generally biological manufacturing, research,  
            development and testing businesses) that uses animals or  
            animal products for research and testing.

          2)Provides that no person, business, or association shall  
            knowingly publicly post or publicly display on the Internet a  
            home address, home telephone number, or image of any employee  
            of an animal enterprise or other individuals residing at the  
            same home address of the employee of an animal enterprise, as  
            specified.

          3)Provides that every person who commits any of the specified  
            acts for the purpose of injuring, intimidating, or interfering  
            with the operations of an animal enterprise, including but not  
            limited to nonviolent "intimidation" or "attempted  
            intimidation" of a person who has a connection to,  
            relationship with or transactions with an animal enterprise,  
            or who damages or destroys property because of its connection  
            to an animal enterprise, as specified, is guilty of a  
            misdemeanor and provides alternate punishments depending on  
            the elements of the offense of up to 6 months imprisonment in  
            a county jail and a fine of up to $2,000, or up to one year in  
            a county jail and a fine of up to $25,000, with such fines  
            being increased for subsequent offenses and other  
            circumstances, as specified.

          4)Creates an additional private civil cause of action for any of  
            the foregoing crimes, and authorizes not just the victim of  
            these prohibitions to maintain an action for damages and for  
            injunctive relief, as specified, but also proposes, apparently  

                                          4








                                                                            
           
            in unprecedented fashion, that the employer of an alleged  
            victim would have standing to sue even if the person actually  
            aggrieved chooses not to sue, and further authorizes the  
            Attorney General and other public prosecutors to bring an  
            action to enforce the provisions of this measure as well as to  
            collect civil penalties.

          5)States the intent of the Legislature to balance the public's  
            right of access to information and the ability of animal  
            researchers to conduct their work without fear of being  
            targets of harassment and threats of violence.

          6)Provides that an interactive computer service or access  
            software provider, as defined in Section 230(f) of Title of  
            the United States Code, shall not be liable under this section  
            unless the service or provider intends to abet or cause bodily  
            harm that is likely to occur or threatens to cause bodily harm  
            to an owner or employee of an animal enterprise or any person  
            residing at the same home address.
           
          EXISTING LAW:
           
          1)Provides that no person shall knowingly post the home address  
            or telephone number of any elected or appointed official, or  
            of the official's residing spouse or child, on the Internet  
            knowing that person is an elected or appointed official and  
            intending to cause imminent great bodily harm to that  
            individual.  A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor.  
            A violation of this subdivision that leads to the bodily  
            injury of the official, or his or her residing spouse or  
            child, is an alternate felony/misdemeanor.  (Government Code  
            Section 6254.21(b).)

          2)Provides that no person shall knowingly publicly post or  
            display (intentionally communicate or otherwise make available  
            to the general public with the intent to: a) incite a third  
            person to cause imminent great bodily harm to the person  
            identified in the posting or display, or b) to a co-resident  
            of that person, where the third person is likely to commit  
            this harm. Victims can demand that the personal information be  
            removed from an Internet website if the person identified or  
            the co-resident in objectively reasonable fear for his or her  
            personal safety.  (Government Code sections 6218 and 6218.05.)

                                          5








                                                                            
           

          3)Provides that victims of domestic abuse and stalking may   
            protect against the public disclosure of their work, home, or  
            school address by participating in the "Safe at Home" program,  
            which permits program participants to use a substitute mailing  
            address maintained by the Secretary of State whenever their  
            home or work address is required for documents that may become  
            public records.  (Government Code sections 6205 to 6211.)

          4)Provides that any employer, whose employee has suffered  
            unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence from any  
            individual, that can reasonably be construed to be carried out  
            or to have been carried out at the workplace, may seek a  
            temporary restraining order and an injunction on behalf of the  
            employee and, at the discretion of the court, any number of  
            other employees at the workplace, and, if appropriate, other  
            employees at other workplaces of the employer.  (Code of Civil  
            Procedure Section 527.8.)

          5)Provides that "true threats" by which a speaker means to  
            communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act  
            of violence to a particular person or group of persons, are  
            not protected by the First Amendment.  (Virginia v. Black  
            (2003) 538 U.S. 343, 359-360.)

          6)Provides that a state may not forbid or proscribe advocacy of  
            the use of force, violence, or unlawful actions except where  
            such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent  
            lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.  
             (Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969) 395 U.S. 444, 447.)

          7)Provides, under the Public Records Act (PRA), that all records  
            of state and local agencies are open and the public has the  
            right to inspect those records under specified conditions.   
            The PRA exempts specified records, and other provisions of law  
            exempt specified records from the PRA requirement of open  
            records.  (Government Code 6250 et seq.)

          8)Already establishes various criminal offenses in connection  
            with obstruction of, or interference with, among other things,  
            places of business.  (E.g., Penal Code section 602 (trespass);  
            section 647c (blocking walkways); and section 594  
            (vandalism).) 

                                          6








                                                                            
           

          9)Provides federal law enforcement officials with the authority  
            to prosecute animal rights activists who commit crimes, under  
            the federal Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AETA).  (18  
            U.S.C. Section 43.)

          10)Affords colleges and universities and their faculty  
            protection for academic freedom as a constitutional interest  
            in addition to protections for employee-speech.  See  Garcetti  
            v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006)  .  See also Grutter v.  
            Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) ("We have long recognized that,  
            given the important purpose of public education and the  
            expansive freedoms of speech and thought associated with the  
            university environment, universities occupy a special niche in  
            our constitutional tradition"); Keyishian v. Board of Regents  
            of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967) ("Our  
            Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom,  
            which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to  
            the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special  
            concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws  
            that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom. 'The  
            vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more  
            vital than in the community of American schools'" (quoting  
            Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 487); Sweezy v. New  
            Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957) (a governmental enquiry  
            into the contents of a scholar's lectures at a state  
            university "unquestionably was an invasion of [his] liberties  
            in the areas of academic freedom and political  
            expression--areas in which government should be extremely  
            reticent to tread"). 

           COMMENTS  :  This measure, sponsored by the University of  
          California (U.C.), seeks to deter a reported increase in  
          frightening and egregious attacks against U.C. animal research  
          employees and their families in their homes by animal rights  
          activists.  To address these attacks, the bill seeks to create  
          more criminal protections for the prosecution of animal  
          extremists as well as broad and in some ways unprecedented new  
          civil remedies for those victimized as a result of their  
          employment in the "animal enterprise."  The author's proposed  
          definition of "animal enterprise" extends not only to nonprofit  
          and academic entities engaged in animal research, testing and  
          educational activities but also to many commercial businesses  

                                          7








                                                                            
           
          engaged in manufacturing, analytical testing and product  
          development, primarily with regard to biological and life  
          sciences, and the bill is modeled after a broad-reaching federal  
          law enacted in 2006 designed to shield animal researchers from  
          threats of violence or intimidation as a result of their work.

          In support of the bill, U.C. provided the Committee with some  
          frightening and disturbing stories of academics and their  
          families reportedly facing literal assault and battery at their  
          homes by animal protection activists clearly crossing the line  
          from speech into egregious criminal misconduct.  One such story  
          reportedly involved a well-publicized and patently outrageous  
          attempted home invasion just this past February by six masked  
          animal rights extremists at the home of a U.C. Santa Cruz  
          faculty member who had used mice in breast cancer research.   
          Another such set of incidents reportedly occurred recently where  
          Berkeley police have been investigating a two-month string of  
          animal rights related vandalism at the homes of six U.C.  
          Berkeley scientists.  The names and addresses of the scientists  
          were reportedly posted on animal activist websites, along with  
          graphic descriptions of the academicians' alleged animal  
          testing.

          To help combat this alarming reported trend against academic  
          freedom, this measure contains an unprecedented cadre of  
          potential remedies and penalties.  These include but are not  
          limited to a broad new private right of action -- not just  
          available to the academician but to his/her family or  
          co-residents -- with damages, both compensatory and punitive,  
          available, as well as the recovery of attorney's fees, court  
          costs, and the costs of expert witnesses.  The academician also  
          would be granted injunctive relief to have his/her name removed  
          from the Internet.  And perhaps most unusually, the measure  
          proposes creating a private right of action to the employers of  
          the alleged victim described above - whether or not the employee  
          chooses to sue themselves - and the employers, not just academic  
          institutions but all private and public entities covered by the  
          bill - could also sue for damages.

          Below some of the principal constitutional and policy issues  
          raised by the current proposed bill language is explored.   
          However first a quick review of current law which is much more  
          carefully circumscribed in this area is noted.  (The analysis  

                                          8








                                                                            
           
          omits any consideration of the Penal Code sections of the  
          proposal that are outside the jurisdiction and expertise of the  
          Committee.) 
              
           Assemblywoman Evans' Much More Narrowly Tailored Precedents in  
          This Area of Constitutional Law:   Although key components of  
          this measure are, as noted above, closely modeled after the  
          federal Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AETA), a  
          broad-reaching federal law enacted in 2006 by Congress to combat  
          animal rights misconduct, it is important to note that there are  
          important state law analogs this Committee may wish to review in  
          determining the proper scope and breadth of this proposal.   
          Fortunately it need look no further than the landmark  
          legislation of one its current members, Assemblywoman Evans, who  
          has authored the two key measures in this area of the law  
          pertaining to the proper balance between protecting the  
          constitutional rights of reproductive rights workers and  
          patients and the First Amendment, and protecting the  
          constitutional rights of public officials to engage in the work  
          of democracy and the First Amendment.

           AB 2251 (Evans) of 2006 -- Reproductive Rights  :  Two years ago,  
          this measure by Assemblywoman Evans -- subsequently codified --  
          much more narrowly sought to proactively confront a challenge to  
          the safety of women and abortion providers by imposing criminal  
          and civil penalties solely for the posting of information about  
          reproductive health service providers, employees, volunteers,  
          and patients with intent to threaten serious bodily injury or to  
          incite others to cause such injury.  The bill further gave these  
          individuals who were exercising clear constitutional rights  
          (including of course the right of privacy) the right to make a  
          written demand for the removal of their information from any  
          Internet website that posts or displays personal information.   
          In addition, the new law subjects to criminal and civil actions  
          any person, business, or association that solicits, sells, or  
          trades the address, phone number, or image of covered parties if  
          the person, business, or association knows, or should know, that  
          the information will be used with an intent to threaten or  
          incite another to cause great bodily injury to the identified  
          person.

           AB 1595 (Evans) of 2005 - Public Officials  :  The year preceding  
          the enactment of protections for reproductive rights workers and  

                                          9








                                                                            
           
          patients, the Legislature also supported a measure by  
          Assemblywoman Evans - also subsequently codified but which was  
          considered by the Public Safety Committee rather than Judiciary  
          -- also much more narrowly sought to protect the  
          constitutionally-protected rights of public officials to be free  
          of harassment and intimidation in the execution of their  
          constitutional duties.  That measure narrowly prohibits a  
          person, business or association from (1) posting or displaying  
          on the Internet the home address or telephone number of an  
          elected or appointed official, if that official has made a  
          written demand that the home address or telephone number not be  
                                       disclosed; or (2) soliciting the home address or telephone  
          number of an elected or appointed public official for the  
          purpose of posting or displaying the information in violation of  
          the prohibitions in this bill and in existing law.  

           What the Evans Measures Did Not Contain That Are Currently  
          Contained in The Mock-Up of This Proposal  :  Assuming this  
          Committee is prepared to apply the "Evans Model" of  
          constitutionally-grounded protections noted above to  
          academicians who do animal research and testing to help protect  
          these researchers from potential heinous criminal misconduct and  
          harassment, it is important to note the many substantial ways in  
          which the approach approved previously by the Committee and the  
          Legislature in the Evans measures (the Evans Model) is much  
          narrower than the one contained in this proposal.  These  
          differences include:

           Much Broader and Perhaps Unprecedented Standing:  The Evans  
            Model narrowly permits only specified victims of harassment  
            and intimidation via the posting on the Internet of specific  
            personal identifying information to go to court.  This measure  
            on the other hand seeks to authorize not just the alleged  
            victim of a violation to maintain an action for damages and  
            for injunctive relief, as specified, but also proposes,  
            apparently in unprecedented fashion, that the employer of the  
            alleged victim has standing to stand in the shoes of the  
            victim or his or her family to sue -- whether or not the  
            victim chooses to sue, and indeed even if the employee does  
            not wish to sue.  The right of employers to sue would  
            encompass not only acts that occur at the workplace but also  
            any alleged act that takes place anywhere away from the  
            employer's premises.  This provision is in contrast not only  

                                          10








                                                                            
           
            to the Evans Model but to existing law, which grants standing  
            to employers only to protect against violence or threats of  
            violence in the workplace. 

           Much Broader Damages and Other Remedies:  The Evans Model  
            narrowly provides for the limited remedies for public  
            officials and reproductive rights workers to make a written  
            demand that their private personal information including their  
            home address or telephone number be removed from the Internet,  
            and further gives these individuals the right to seek criminal  
            and civil damages against any person, business, or association  
            that solicits, sells, or trades the address, phone number, or  
            image of covered parties if the person, business, or  
            association knows, or should know, that the information will  
            be used with an intent to threaten or incite another to cause  
            great bodily injury to the identified person.  This measure on  
            the other hand seeks to provide a broad new private right of  
            action -- not just available to the academician but to his  
            family or co-residents -- with damages, both compensatory and  
            punitive, available, as well as the recovery of attorney's  
            fees, court costs, and the costs of expert witnesses.

           Much Broader Group of Individuals and Entities Covered:   As  
            noted above, The Evans Model narrowly provides for limited  
            remedies available to a carefully narrowed group of potential  
            plaintiffs - either carefully specified reproductive rights  
            workers and their patients or carefully specified public  
            officials, all felt to possess clear constitutionally-grounded  
            interests.  As noted, this measure on the other hand seeks to  
            permit not just academicians and their families threatened by  
            harassment or distribution of their names on the Internet, to  
            seek redress, but it proposes allowing an unclear number of  
            public and private entities to sue in their own right for  
            alleged violations of the measure's much broader scheme of  
            provisions.  
           
          Key Constitutional and Policy Issues Raised by the Current  
          Version of the Bill  :  For all of its laudable aims, this bill  
          raises a host of constitutional and policy questions.  While no  
          person should be subjected to many of the acts prohibited by the  
          bill, the Legislature has not previously seen fit to create  
          special statutory rights to sue -- absent a countervailing  
          cognizable constitutional interest, such as those implicated in  

                                          11








                                                                            
           
          the exercise of rights to reproductive freedom and to the  
          associational and expressive rights related to performing the  
          constitutional duties of an elected public official.

          By extending rights and protections to a large class of  
          commercial enterprises - admittedly engaged in lawful and  
          perhaps even necessary business activities, even if not  
          constitutionally enshrined - this bill extends far beyond any  
          existing state precedent.  Were the bill to be enacted with the  
          proposed definition of "animal enterprise," it is difficult to  
          articulate a basis on which to deny other businesses the same  
          rights and protections when they are engaged in similarly lawful  
          but potentially controversial activities that may be the target  
          of opponents exercising free speech rights, such as tobacco and  
          oil companies, defense suppliers, gun manufacturers and the  
          like.

          Nevertheless, the author has identified a constitutionally  
          cognizable interest here that the Committee may find rises to  
          similar constitutional dimension as the earlier bills by  
          Assemblywoman Evans recently enacted by the Legislature: namely,  
          the protection of the right to academic freedom shared by  
          colleges and universities and their faculty.  See, e.g.,  
           Garcetti v. Ceballos 2006) 547 U.S. 410  (colleges and  
          universities and their faculty enjoy protection for academic  
          freedom as a constitutional interest in addition to protections  
          for employee-speech); Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)  
          ("We have long recognized that, given the important purpose of  
          public education and the expansive freedoms of speech and  
          thought associated with the university environment, universities  
          occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition");  
          Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385  
          U.S. 589, 603 (1967) ("Our Nation is deeply committed to  
          safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to  
          all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned.  That  
          freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment,  
          which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over  
          the classroom.  'The vigilant protection of constitutional  
          freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American  
          schools'" (quoting Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 487); Sweezy  
          v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957) (a governmental  
          enquiry into the contents of a scholar's lectures at a state  
          university "unquestionably was an invasion of [his] liberties in  

                                          12








                                                                            
           
          the areas of academic freedom and political expression--areas in  
          which government should be extremely reticent to tread").  
          Regents of the Univ. of Cal v.  Bakke  (1978)  438 U.S. 265, at  
          313-14  (Powell, J.) (academic freedom constitutes a  
          countervailing constitutional interest against which to weigh  
          individual constitutional rights).

           The Committee may therefore conclude  that this recognized  
          constitutional right is deserving of special protection against  
          acts of violence and threats of violence.  This objective could  
          be accomplished by redefining "animal enterprise" to mean "an  
          entity that lawfully uses animals or animal products for  
          education or research in any exercise of a constitutional right  
          to academic freedom."

          As indicated above, the bill also departs from existing  
          precedent by affording every covered employer a right to sue for  
          any employee who is allegedly aggrieved by a violation of the  
          acts prohibited by the bill - including some that may be  
          somewhat subjective, such as "nonviolent attempted intimidation"  
          - regardless of where those acts take place and regardless of  
          the employee's wishes.  This is in contrast to the Evans Model,  
          which limits the right to seek relief to the injured person or a  
          public prosecutor.  

          Again, despite the admirable aims of the author and sponsor to  
          protect academic employees in their homes, the bill may sweep  
          too far.  If well-meaning universities were able to act on  
          behalf of frightened and vulnerable employees who are targeted  
          for violence in their homes because of their association with  
          the university, it is also true that the bill would apparently  
          permit less-virtuous employers to override the wishes of their  
          employees to sue protesters they encounter on the street.   
          Likewise, there is no obvious bright line limiting the principle  
          behind the bill to employers involved in an animal enterprise,  
          rather than to other employers who may be the focus of protests  
          because of their activities.  Assuming the Committee wishes to  
          pass some version of this legislation, it may wish to discuss  
          with the author whether the bill should move forward without the  
          proposed subdivision (b) of the proposed Penal Code section to  
          be added at 606.1.
           
          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :  In support of the bill and reflecting the  

                                          13








                                                                            
          
          broad call for new protections by academic institutions, sponsor  
          U.C. writes in part that "Research involving the use of animals  
          has contributed significantly to the discovery and development  
          of critical scientific breakthroughs and medical therapies?  
          Animal research can be an important step in determining whether  
          a promising therapy might be safe for human use.  Radiation  
          therapy and other cancer treatments, the development of  
          vaccines, organ transplantation, and many mental health  
          treatments have all resulted in part from work done on animals?  
          Animal research is subject to strict federal and state  
          regulation designed to ensure humane and ethical treatment of  
          animals? When such work is disrupted by the actions used by  
          extreme animal rights activists, the deleterious impact on  
          important research can be significant and can delay the  
          development of greatly-needed and potentially lifesaving  
          therapies."  Many other entities wrote the Committee in support,  
          as noted in the list below.   

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :  In opposition, civil liberties groups  
          like the ACLU and the Newspaper Publishers Association complain  
          that the bill raises serious constitutional concerns, including  
          that they feel it is overbroad by potentially prohibiting the  
          posting of truthful, accurate information on the Internet, and  
          risking the imposition of civil and criminal liability for  
          conduct that is commonly related to public protest.  They state  
          that there may indeed be competing academic freedom rights that  
          are worthy of new protections but "that is not what is proposed  
          by this legislation."  Animal rights groups like the Humane  
          Society of the United States also assert in opposition to the  
          bill that as currently drafted it would regrettably have a  
          chilling effect on lawful advocacy..."  Other entities wrote the  
          Committee in opposition, as noted in the list below.   

           REGISTERED SUPPORT/OPPOSITION  :  
           
           Support
           
          University of California (sponsor)
          Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities  
          (AICUU)
          BayBio
          BIOCOM
          California Biomedical Research Association

                                          14








                                                                            
           
          California Healthcare Institute
          California Institute of Technology
          California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
          California Postsecondary Education Commission
          California State University
          Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
          Feld Entertainment, Inc.
          Stanford University
          University of Southern California
          One individual

           Opposition 

           California Newspaper Publishers Association
          Animal Place
          American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
          The Humane Society of the United States
          One individual

           
          Analysis Prepared by  :  Kevin Baker and Drew Liebert / JUD. /  
          (916) 319-2334 






















                                          15