BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2296
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2296 (Mullin)
As Amended April 23, 2008
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 10-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Jones, Tran, Adams, | | |
| |Evans, Feuer, Keene, | | |
| |Krekorian, Laird, Levine, | | |
| |Lieber | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Seeks to create new civil remedies for threats and
other misconduct made against an "animal enterprise" engaged in
exercising its constitutional rights pertaining to academic
freedom in its use of animals for testing and research.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines "animal enterprise" as an entity that lawfully uses
animals or animal products for education or research in any
exercise of a constitutional right that relates to academic
freedom.
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, with the intent to incite great bodily harm or
threaten the person, as specified.
3)Provides that no person, business, or association shall
publicly post or publicly display on the Internet a home
address, home telephone number, or image of any employee of an
animal enterprise if that individual has made a written demand
to not disclose his or her home address or home telephone
number, which would be effective for four years, regardless of
whether or not the individual's affiliation with an animal
enterprise has expired prior to the end of the four-year
period.
AB 2296
Page 2
4)Authorizes a victim of a violation of those prohibitions to
maintain an action for damages and for injunctive relief, as
specified.
5)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.
6)States the intent of the Legislature to balance the public's
right of access to information with the ability of animal
researchers to conduct their work without fear of harassment
and threats of violence.
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/her residing spouse or child,
is an alternate felony/misdemeanor.
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.
3)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
AB 2296
Page 3
(2003) 538 U.S. 343, 359-360.)
4)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.)
5)Establishes various criminal offenses in connection with
obstruction of, or interference with, among other things,
places of business.
6)Provides federal law enforcement officials with the authority
to prosecute animal rights activists who commit crimes, under
the federal Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AETA).
7)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).
COMMENTS : This bill, 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, this bill seeks to create a new new civil
remedy for those victimized as a result of their employment in
the "animal enterprise." This bill, with the author's
thoughtful cooperation, was substantially narrowed when it was
heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee to provide the bill
with a needed constitutional grounding. The definition of
"animal enterprise" was greatly limited as were the remedies
provided under the measure to target the potentially dangerous
misconduct sought to be curtailed by the legislation.
In support of this bill, U.C. provided the Judiciary 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.
AB 2296
Page 4
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 Web sites, along with
graphic descriptions of the academicians' alleged animal
testing. This bill now closely follows two similar bills
authored by Assemblywoman Evans which seek to protect the
constitutional rights of reproductive rights workers and the
constitutional rights of public officials.
With this bill's very substantial narrowing, the author has
identified a constitutionally cognizable interest that the
Judiciary Committee found 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; Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003); Keyishian v.
Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U.S. 589, 603
(1967); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957);
Regents of the Univ. of Cal v. Bakke (1978) 438 U.S. 265, at
313-14.
In support of this 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
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."
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker and Drew Liebert / JUD.
/ (916) 319-2334
AB 2296
Page 5
FN: 0004534