Some more info from Wired (these are just some excerpts - read the entire article you lazy shut-in):
Setting aside claims of vagueness, a divided federal appeals court is upholding the constitutionality of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, a statute that makes it a crime to encourage “physical disruption” or “economic damage” against animal-research centers.
Thursday’s decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (.pdf) was the first time an appellate court has grappled with the free speech issues raised by the law, reviewing the case of radical animal-rights activists who were convicted in 2006 of using e-mail and websites to encourage violence — including bombings — against a New Jersey animal-research center, its shareholders, office holders, bankers and others affiliated with it.
The six ranking members of the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty group, some of whom were sentenced to up to six years in prison, argued that the 2002 statute, amended in 2006, has a chilling effect on speech because of its ambiguity.
While the bulk of the defendants’ online postings and e-mails were protected speech, the court said it was troubled with the dissemination of personal information of individuals employed by Huntingdon and affiliated companies — including some communications accompanied with threats to burn down their houses. What’s more, the appellate panel said the defendants’ e-mails and online postings that coordinated the denial of service attacks were clearly illegal.
The court pointed out that the defendants noted online in real time that their efforts were having the desired effect of crippling Huntingdons’ servers.
“This message encouraged and compelled an imminent, unlawful act that was not only likely to occur, but provided the schedule by which the unlawful act was to occur,” the court noted. “This type of communication is not protected speech.”
The six defendants, however, argued that they did not publicly advocate illegal activity in their electronic rants, and that the government has transformed their protected speech into unlawful speech because of the independent action of others.
The court noted that “political hyperbole” or advocating violence that is not imminent and unlikely to occur is protected. But speech that constitutes a “true threat” is not.
