End of First Amendment Rights in Los Angeles?

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge on Wednesday issued a permanent injunction that bars animal rights activists from harassing or interfering with UCLA scientists who use animals in their research.

The action by Judge Terry B. Friedman in Santa Monica replaces a previous preliminary injunction and forbids several organizations, five individuals and anyone working with them from demonstrating near UCLA researchers' homes. It also prohibits the posting of personal information about the university's employees on animal rights websites.

In March, two of the activists named in Wednesday's injunction were indicted by a Los Angeles County grand jury and charged with threatening and harassing UCLA scientists.

However, the two were not charged with a series of separate incidents involving arsons and vandalism against researchers and their families; those cases remain unsolved, officials said.

-- Larry Gordon


Anonymous said...

I think the activists can still voice their opinion without yelling through bull horns at people's homes and scaring their children. They can still speak out against them at their place of work. They can voice their opinion online without having to post their home addresses. And again, all of this will not affect the ALF. They don't go to protests and already know where these people sleep at night.

Anonymous said...

Sounds more like some sort of a restraining order than a rights violation.

Brad Jensen

Anonymous said...

Here's some free speech. Get the terrorists before the terrrists get you.

Anonymous said...

It is a restraining order, a permanent injunction. That group and those individuals can't protest at the researchers homes or post their personal information online. This does not keep other non-named friends from doing the same.

The City got an order against Ferdin and ADL because they posted the home address of Blackman's wife and other things. Ferdin and ADL just had another "anonymous" entity post those same things. That's why the really bad items are on lakills.net and no longer on stopthekilling.net These injunctions don't help, obviously. It'd be like having a major ant problem at your house and you decide to sue each ant one at a time in succession. It doesn't stop the ants, just gives you a headache.

Anonymous said...


Did you see this?


Anonymous said...

Hey why doesn't DEATH = BOKS and Ed M. pay to keep all the unadoptable dogs and in California alive forever and ever? it's cheaper than destroying them... isn't it?

Yeah, it's a noble idea if somebody else has to do it and the taxpayers have to pay for it.

Boks = Death said...

Schwarzenegger isn't planning to fast-track the killing of only "unadoptable" dogs, whatever you mean by that, but ALL dogs, cats, rabbits, birds - including lost pets. This isn't his ill-considered response to a one-off crisis, it's his second attempt to accelerate shelter killing because he clearly thinks animals' lives are a waste of money, and he can't be bothered to cut something that might actually hurt his chances with potential future donors, like corporate tax breaks.

But, as I have mentioned, back when some other "anonymous" hero demanded that posters here give their no-kill credentials, I have adopted almost all my animals from public shelters, except the ones I adopted from a neighbor who wasn't caring for them. If city and county limits were larger I'd adopt more. I also spend well over twenty hours a week (sometimes a LOT more) working for a no-kill shelter that, in addition to taking owner turn-ins and abandoned animals, DOES rescue what you refer to as "unadoptable" animals from local shelters.

But you don't really care about that do you? You just want to present animal care in California as an unsolvable problem so you can attack those of us who think there is a solution, and it sure isn't cutting shelter animal hold times in half.

Ed's a taxpayer and so am I. He saves animals, and I do what I can, in a number of ways. But I'm guessing you would be happier to have it be an unsolvable problem so you could go on collecting a City check (our tax money) while animals die as fast as they can. Solutions are only a problem for people who like things the way they are.

And yes, I think it's worth asking if three days' worth of food and water are really that much more expensive than a needle-full of Euthanol. But it doesn't sound like you care about that much. What's thousands more dead cats and dogs to you?

Ed Muzika said...

It is "why don't" knucklehead, not "Why doesn't."

The Hayden Law provided for 6 days under certain circumstances, and 4 days for s shelter open 6 days a week and evenings.

The state has to (is mandated by law) to reimburse the shelters a given amount for each day an animal is kept over 3 days.

Trouble is, the state was not paying it and they owed a lot (according to them,the amount was never specified, but I think it was less than $8,000,000 for several years) of money.

Yes, Arnie seems something of an asshole, narcissistic, and an egomaniac.

The moron above just decided to play Rush limbaugh moronism, rather than add anything substantive.

Anonymous said...

"It is "why don't" knucklehead, not "Why doesn't.""

You got me there!