Of course, the writer is being very disingenous in arguing - nay, relaying without really engaging - that SHAC and others "committed more than 1,100 acts of terrorism, causing more than $120 million in damage". If animal activists had committed that number of genuine 'terrorist' acts, they would leave in their wake the IRA, ETA, Hamas, Tupac Amaru, the Tamil Tigers, even that most feared bunch of villians, the CIA, etc etc, COMBINED, in terms of scope and scale. \n\nNo mean feat for a handful of vegan bunny huggers. \n\nIf our author sought to elucidate these 'terrorist acts' the claim would be seen for the nonsense it is. We get to this absurd position because it is convenient - not politically logical - to refer to animal actvists as 'terrorists'. That being so, everything that is subsequently done in the name of animal rights that violates the law becomes defined, by those in power, as a terrorist act. At most, there are one or two acts that - straining credibility as far as it goes - could be thought of as 'terrorism'. A larger number of these "1100" acts are petty criminality: paint over cars, etc. But the bulk of these so called 'terrorist acts' were non events - not so much 'terrorism' as a few radicals grunting and groaning. If I am doubted, why doesn't the scientist list, from 01 -1100, all of the so called 'terrorist' acts? Let the reader judge. \n\nNo one denies that crimes have been committed. No one denies that the scientist obviously has a vested interest in the status quo and therefore sees animal activists as the 'enemy'. Nonetheless, you have brains so use them. This US bill is clearly, patently, about preventing any protest. Consult the Lawyer Guide's condemnation of the bill for this. \n\nTerrorism is the standard pretext. Freedom of association, of thought and speech, is the usual victim. The Scientist should put its self interest to one side and see a spade for a spade.