United States v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, USA, Inc. [1]

On March 2, 2006, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) and six of its members were convicted of terrorism and Internet stalking under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act [2]. The group was charged with engaging in various forms of harassment and intimidation of people associated with Huntingdon Life Sciences in an attempt to shut down the company's animal testing activities.

During the trial, the government did not present evidence that the individual defendants directly participated in any acts of vandalism and violence. Instead, the prosecution pointed to web postings by, and video of, the members celebrating the acts and using the word "we" to claim credit for the conduct.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the conviction on October 14, 2009, finding that the Animal Enterprise Protection Act was constitutional on its face and as applied to the defendants. In particular, the court found that links on the SHAC website to tools that facilitated (illegal) virtual sit-ins were clearly intended to incite imminent, lawless conduct, and that such conduct was likely to occur, and thus were not protected speech.

It is not clear whether the defendant's have petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.