Yes this is the lab where some of the key figures of the lab have had: mock gravestones (for the humans and animals that have died as a result of HLS) left on their front porch; demonstrations at their homes; and were visited by a group called the ALF who have smashed out windows. Note that the ALF is not SHAC. If you read the indictment, you will find out that none of these people are being charged with breaking windows. In fact, the indictment alleges very few illegal activities, and those illegal actions that it does mention are not attributed to any of the arrested activists themselves. Most of what the indictment mentions are legal forms of protest, like calling companies to complain about animal abuse or sending e-mails to HLS collaborators.

Even a conservative legal analyst from Fox News has expressed that she finds the indictment to be “reaching.� So why were the SHAC 7 arrested?

Supposedly, the federal government feels that by reporting news from the campaign on a website, philosophically supporting direct action, and attending and organizing legal demonstrations, the SHAC 7 were actually conspiring to make other people break the law. Legal activities such as letter writing are also being counted as part of an illegal campaign because the government proclaims that the SHAC 7 conspired to create such a volume of letters as to interfere with interstate commerce.

Sound absurd? It gets worse.

One part of the indictment actually makes mention of a “Top 20 Terror Tactics� post on the SHAC website. What the prosecutors fail to mention is that SHAC did not write the document, but re-posted it from a pro-animal testing website, which had written it to rally support against SHAC.

Another reason for the terrorism charges, the government states is:
“Count 28: On or about October, 2002, the SHAC website posted an announcement listing the home address and telephone number of CA, and HLS employee.
Count 29: On or about October 21, 2002, the SHAC website posted an announcement relating to signs that were posted in and around Princeton, New jersey area, which referred to CA as ‘deluded and deranged; and listed her home address and telephone number.�

Again what the prosecution forgets to mention was the article that was posted on the SHAC website re-posted from the local Princeton newspaper. In other words, people are facing jail sentences and millions of dollars in fines for placing our opposition’s writings on the SHAC website.

Using the governments theory that posting a controversial posting on a website, even if it is not you own, you should be prosecuted. The New York Times would be first in line for terrorism charges for re-posting the Unabomber’s manifesto. Do we see indictments to all of the New York Times employees? Of course not. These are politically motivated charges.