The University of California has gone to the Legislature seeking to restrict public access to information about academics who do animal research and to make it illegal to post personal information about them online. The prohibited online information would include the researchers' names, home addresses and photographs. The measure, AB2296, also would outlaw activities targeting corporate researchers.
Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-San Mateo, agreed to submit the legislation at UC's request after months of harassment, threats and vandalism at the homes and offices of university researchers.
"Several campuses have experienced incidents which are just shocking," said Chancellor George Blumenthal of UC Santa Cruz during a telephone news conference Monday. Protesters in February are accused of trying to break into a UC Santa Cruz professor's home and attacking her husband. "It's the greatest threat to academic freedom that I've ever seen on this campus."
At UCLA, protesters both flooded and lit a fire at a medical professor's home. Activists have visited the homes of UC Berkeley researchers, shouting, posting fliers and , in the past few days, breaking windows.
Such a law would curtail free speech, said Jerry Vlasak, a Los Angeles-area surgeon who acts as a spokesman for the more extreme branch of the animal-rights movement. It would not stop vandalism and other protests, he said.
"The people who are doing underground direct action don't care what the law says anyway," he said. The measure "is aimed at those who are exercising their free-speech rights."
Limits on protests walk a fine line between oppressive and protective, said Michael Risher, a San Francisco-based attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. Courts have ruled that similar restrictions on Web sites targeting abortion doctors are legal, he said, but only when they are likely to incite violence."We would really want to see that there's a threat to people's safety," he said. The bill may "sweep much too broadly."
Mullin acknowledged Monday that he is trying to balance First Amendment rights with protection for researchers. He said he plans to rewrite the information restriction this week to protect a select group of them. "We're not in the business of narrowing constitutional protections," he said. "Finding that balance is what we're all about."
The amended version would limit California's public-records laws, however. Legislators will be asked to exempt information about researchers from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, which makes most government documents available to anyone who asks for them.
UC leaders said they were worried that protesters had obtained personal information on the professors from public records, but they had no specific examples.
Protesters increasingly have targeted professors who use animals in their research, citing examples of drilled skulls, forced dehydration and paralyzation of cats, rats and hyenas. Activists say the research is unnecessary and overly invasive.University administrators said the research could not be done without using animals and have repeatedly called the protesters terrorists. "Free speech is not the issue," said Steven Beckwith, the UC vice president for research. "The issue is violence. We just don't tolerate violence."
Matt Krupnick covers higher education. Reach him at 925-943-8246.
For more information on the campaign in opposition to UC Berkeley vivisection, visit the website and get active:
http://www.freewebs.com/stopucberkeleyvivisection
Highlights of AB 2296
* It allows local authorities to better prevent, investigate and prosecute those persons who practice intimidation, harassment and violence. [Rather vague, and deliberately so in all likelyhood.]
* It increases penalties for intentional economic damage and disruption, and for intentionally causing bodily harm or placing a person in reasonable fear of death or bodily harm. [Again quite vague. What exactly qualifies as disruption? What is reasonable? What is economic damage, as that sounds broader than just property destruction?]
Note that when it gets down to details of the law, you see things like "disruption" in there when UC reiterates over and over in their PR that this proposed law is just about violence, as if violence is not already illegal. Economic damage? Does that include protecting profitability of animal research? Would actions such as boycotts and letter campaigns that target suppliers be swept up with this law?
http://www.pixelexdesign.com/stopcalvivisection
40,000 non-human animals are currently being exploited in the name of "research" at UC-Berkeley. A new facility currently being constructed at University Avenue and Oxford Way, scheduled for completion in March 2010 and known as the Li Ka-Shing Center for Biomedical and Health Sciences, would expand the existing animal facility by 70 percent.