BILL ANALYSIS AB 2296 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 2296 (Mullin) As Amended May 15, 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 or home telephone number 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. 4)Authorizes a victim of a violation of those prohibitions to maintain an action for damages and for injunctive relief, as AB 2296 Page 2 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 (2003) 538 U.S. 343, 359-360.) 4)Provides that a state may not forbid or proscribe advocacy of AB 2296 Page 3 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. 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 AB 2296 Page 4 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 FN: 0004674