Animal Rights Activists Sue UCLA Police: Claim Campus Cops Target, Harrass and Crush Free Speech Over Monkey Love

Corinne Titus

Animal experimentation is both an animal rights issue and a human rights issue.

Corinne Titus

UCLA vivisector Dario Ringach quit on the same day that I told UCLA I finally had a lawyer, Ringach sent out the dated email with his annoucement, Aug. 4, 2006. The dated deposition I took from UCLA's medical witness was taken on Aug. 4, 2006. The potential lawyer later decided not to take my case after viewing the edited film evidence. I represented myself in a lawsuit against UCLA when I was unreasonably injured at UCLA in 2003, demonstrating against animal experimentation.

CoryCatLady

I know Pamalyn Ferdin is working for the government, that's for sure. Look at my evidence of an obvious infoment/agent who was a witness when I was unreasonably injured at UCLA in 2003 with a 2006 trial. She and her hubby Vlasak always protected the witness who held the camera when I was injured and had the film edited. Look at matching photos on myspace/uclacoverup. Don't know anything about the other ladies who are most likely real.They set you up to get busted, Ferdin and others.

Corinne Titus Anti-vivisection Activist

Tommy

Vegina (or should I say Carol Glasser, one of the arrested UCLA protesters)-- Intentionally intimidating, creating fear, screaming, trying to turn neighbor against neighbor by calling them murderers...and worse, is not the method practiced by Martin Luther King as you suggest in some of your writings. Your tactics are much more Klan like. I have walked the steps of Dr. King's path in Birmingham, Alabama. I lived the civil rights movements of the 60s. I think Dr. King would be appalled with your methods, but not necessarily your objectives or dreams. You are not peaceful and the label of non-violent is in question. You've been arrested at least once. I feel confident that there is more jail or prison time in your future.

Tommy

ATTENTION: Let's all be clear on this. The number of comments posted under the name "Vegina" is Carol Glasser, one of the protesters named in the article as being arrested by the UCLA police and filing suit against them. She is an admitted vegan, activist, feminist, guest speaker at radical animal liberation forums and is involved weekly protesting other types of legal businesses that use animals for food or entertainment. She has every right to comment here, but be aware of her personal agenda. Check out www.vegina.wordpress.com to learn more about who Vegina (aka Carol Glasser) really is.

Guest

I'm not surprised re UCLA utilizing illegal tactics to stop the LEGAL protests of ADLA. UCLA similarly uses illegal tactics against Unions trying to organize the UCLA professors etc.

Westwood Doctor

"One day the absurdity of the almost universal human belief in the slavery of other animals will be palpable. We shall then have discovered our souls and become worthier of sharing this planet with them."-- Martin Luther King, Jr

Ben Kessler

How absurd that standing up for the rights of innocent animals is considered "extremist". I have seen the horrible, gruesome images of the experiments UCLA labs have done to monkeys. No living thing should have this kind of bloody abuse perpetrated on it, just to feed the financial greed of UCLA & the billion-dollar drug companies that benefit from this sick "research." Disgusting! I live in Westwood and am thrilled that someone is speaking up for the voices of these animals, victims of unnecessary cruelty.

Dave Simon

Shame on UCLA for torturing animals and spying on activists. In the U.S., even if animals don't have rights yet, people do. These activists deserve to win their lawsuit, and I'm sure they will.

CYoFC

"One of the issues, says Hampton, is that animal rights activists usually "put up inflammatory images, shoot epithets and have a history of frightening children while demonstrating at the homes." According to law, this still does not give the UCLA PD cause to covertly follow these animal rights activists and shoot their photos. Like it or not, inflammatory images, epithets, and yes, even frightening children are among the many side effects inherent in free speech. Clearly, the activists feel very strongly about their cause - why else would their demonstrations evoke such feelings of anxiety in bystanders? That is the point. That is legal. That is what a protest is. And yes, it is, in fact, legal to protest outside of a private residence so long as you remain 100 feet away from the house and do not use bull horns. Maybe you disagree with the protesters' message and/or their methods of getting that message across, but your concerns DO NOT make any of this illegal. Furthermore, anyone that takes the time to education him/herself on vivisection and laboratory procedures would understand why these animal rights activists are so incensed in the first place. Please take a moment and inform yourself before making judgments. There are plenty of videos and articles about vivisection available on the internet.

Dora E.

It is important to consider that the actions used by some of the LA activists are very clearly meant to make their target feel as though their personal safety and that of their family and neighbors is in jeopardy.

Lighting cars on fire, placing incendiary devices on doorsteps, sending razor blades in the mail, among other actions, are obvious threats, clearly unacceptable, and completely illegal. They are all things that have happened to scientists at UCLA.

The police are also charged with protecting citizens under threat of violence. That part of the background is important to consider in order to understand why the police are concerned and why the anxiety is not simply about chanting protesters.

Rational D

Dora, your rationale is the same as racial profiling. If all the burglaries in my neighborhood are perpetrated by latinos, does that mean the police would have a valid reason to arrest all latinos walking legally down my street? Seriously.

vegina

Dora, you are, like the "journalist" conflating legal and illegal protest. The lawsuit is brought by legal protesters, who never set anything on fire. I have read your comments, you are educated on this matter and you are intentionally conflating the two to make it seem justified that legal protesters are being harassed. At least you don't claim to be a journalist...

Patches Sitty

the pre-emptive strike as a weapon against free speech you don't like... i bet it sounds really nifty until it happens to someone you agree with

Rational D

Vegina, you're right. Dora advocates profiling as a preventative measure. Of course it's wrong. Our country works hard against profiling every day to protect law abiding citizens against stereotyping. Now that protection against profiling needs to be extended to legal demonstrations.

Dora E.

Vegina, you are, like some of the other commenters trying to ignore consideration of background and context that are important to understanding this issue. Sure, without that background it is easier to convey the impression that the only thing scientists and people who provide for their security are responding to is a bunch of chanting protestors who pose no threat. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Their response is shaped by experiences with a sustained campaign of actions and activities designed to create fear for their safety. Would you not feel the same way?

CYoFC

If the police are concerned about actions like lighting cars on fire, then they should investigate the people who engage in such behavior and not obstruct protesters who are behaving legally.

CYoFC

A Researcher: Assuming these events are related is paranoid. The government has begun to treat animal rights activists like they are terrorists, just as they did with Middle Eastern Americans after 9/11. Assuming the worst, which we as a nation have done, makes our country less free and no safer.

A Researcher

Given that the leader of these obscene street pickets was quoted, in Los Angeles magazine (July '10 edition), as saying she wished a UCLA scientist had burned to death in the car fire at his house, I think your conclusion that the pickets and arsons are unrelated is naive.

Sally

Whether or not you support vivisection, you know freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected right. It is a freedom whether you happen to agree with what the protesters are advocating for or not.

CYoFC

"One of the issues, says Hampton, is that animal rights activists usually "put up inflammatory images, shoot epithets and have a history of frightening children while demonstrating at the homes." According to law, this still does not give the UCLA PD cause to covertly follow these animal rights activists and shoot their photos. Like it or not, inflammatory images, epithets, and yes, even frightening children are among the many side effects inherent in free speech. Clearly, the activists feel very strongly about their cause - why else would their demonstrations evoke such feelings of anxiety in bystanders? That is the point. That is legal. That is what a protest is. And yes, it is, in fact, legal to protest outside of a private residence so long as you remain 100 feet away from the house and do not use bull horns. Maybe you disagree with the protesters' message and/or their methods of getting that message across, but your concerns DO NOT make any of this illegal. Furthermore, anyone that takes the time to education him/herself on vivisection and laboratory procedures would understand why these animal rights activists are so incensed in the first place. Please take a moment and inform yourself before making judgments. Here's somewhere to start: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Guest23453631123

This article is extremely biased against the Animal Rights activists. When you are speaking about the animal rights activists you use words like "claim" or "say" or what the fuck ever. But when you are talking about anyone else you are stating it like it's fact. This article sucks, and you need someone to do more research on the topic before just pulling something out of their ass to please the crowd.

jbelle

Animal abuse is never OK, whether it be in a university setting or someone's back yard. Freedom of Speech is a protected, first amendment right. The police here have overstepped their bounds and I am sure the court system will set it straight. The activist’s lawsuit is not a frivolous attempt at attention... They are being followed and intimidate, and this their rights are being denied.

EVERYONE has the right to protest, march, or speak-up for what they believe in. How anyone can argue that animal torture is acceptable, I can not comprehend. More power to the few that take a stand to stop a wrong that is being done. And I hope that the legal system will do what it is supposed to do, and protect the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the laws.

Sunflowermoon007

i went to an animal sanctuary the other day, and it was so beautiful to see these wonderful animals, co-existing: rabbits, horses, cows, chickens, turkeys, a blue peacock, a goat with a long white goat-ee, sweet lambs. they were all alive and going about their day. it felt like being back at an ancient, welcoming, loving home from long ago.

The best part is that all of these animals were ALIVE. there was a whole different vibe in the air. It was amazing.

Barnes

Yes well lets add the lion, the wolf, a bear, and coyote and see the true reality of your home from long ago. Oh, and lets ad bubonic plague, small pox, rubella, cholera, rabies, and anthrax. I am sure then your sweetie pie lambs and goats as well as the other domestic species would all be scamping merrily together. And then of course you will need your spear so you can eat as well as, protect your self from the lion, bear, wolf and tiger. Or did you mange to sign a non aggression treaty with these sentient beings? Too much disneyanna for you. Have you ever noticed that the tiger which we have no need of other than its beauty is still on the endangered species list while the Buffalo came off that list because its now a useful food source for human beings. Nature is about survival of the species not individual members. Only someone who has not had enough VB12 from meat would view the world in such an irrational manner as you have just described. Fantasy is fine for children, but grow up and realize that nature has no such illusions.

Rational D

I agree with brooklyn75 about the hateful tone of "Dr" Barnes posts. This particular line of thinking in this particular post would rationalize extinction.

xyz

You have such an angry, hateful heart, Dr. Barnes. I can't imagine living with that much anger and bitterness inside, like you. You should spent more time appreciating animals (and people too! as you sound like the kind of person to say mean things to other humans for no good reason) than hating them. The experience will make you a much less bitter human.

Smileandthink

I'm seeing a lot of red herrings in the pro-activist arguments on this thread. Harassment is absolutely NOT protected by the 1st amendment. This type of demonstration is clearly threatening and harassing in nature and is not simply "expressing an opinion." The police are therefore absolutely right - indeed required - to stop it.

CYoFC

I'm seeing a lot of red herrings in the anti-activist arguments on this thread. The activists were following the law. Like it or not, the law dictates that one IS permitted to protest outside a private residence, so long as all procedures are followed, such as remaining 100 feet away. It is not harassment. If the activists or their message are "crazy" or "cult-like," it is still not harassment, it is still legal, and free speech is still their first amendment right.

Goblue1000

Without animal research, we wouldn't have medical devices, vaccines, antibiotics, and know what products are safe for humans. Most devices - anesthesia machines, ventilators, catheters, etc. - were tested in (gasp) animals! Organ transplants were first done in (gasp) animals! Our fundamental knowledge about which molecules regulate disease progression (asthma, diabetes, etc.) was acquired through work done in (gasp) animals! The Nazis did HUMAN experiments... which is what these animal rights people would have us do. Ironic that all of us take for-granted the medical developments of the last century that we have all benefited from. Not saying that all animal research is warranted or justified. Agree we need to scrutinize and question why studies need to be conducted in animals. Which is why every institution that does animal research has laypeople sitting on their review committee questioning why certain studies need to be conducted in animals. We need to address the problem at this level (a more intelligent, civilized manner) rather than reduce our discourse to a one-sided rant from a bunch of fanatics.

Rational D

We know what causes our top killers (heart disease, cancer etc.) but no researcher has the cojones to advocate prevention, which would really save lives. Animal testing is as accurate as a coin toss. Just Google "ADMET" and "coin toss." It's there for the world to see.

vegina

You people are aware that there aren't any cures to any cancers due to animal testing, important medicines like penicillin have been held off of the market becasue they didn't work on the animals they were initially tested on, animal tests are less reliable and valid than developed alternatives, and that even the NIH had held conferences to work on ways to get scientists to lay off of the animal models since more effective, safer and reliable models exist, right? Maybe you're not not aware? Look into it, don't just mindlessly listen.Now, back to the point of the article: is it okay for protesters who are harassed by the police to turn around and insist that it stop? Have any of you who are saying these people are "crazy" or "threatening"looked into what those that they protest are researching? Have you seen them protest? What makes you think that they are protesting individuals who are saving lives or that they are being threatening? Try being better than this journalist and look at both sides of the story. Then do some research into the history of social movements. You will see everyone who ever made a difference had to argue against people like you who would do anything to uphold the status quo, rather than consider an opposing viewpoint seriously and then thinking for themselves. You will also see that changes are almost always made by making the most comfortable and average in society a little bit uncomfortable. Here are people who are standing up for what they believe in, spending their weekends choosing protest over leisure. They believe in something and they are smart about educating others and protesting. When they are blocked out of UCLA by having the campus place heavy fees on anyone who wants to demonstrate and being refused access into talks and other places of discourse, after the UC system passed a measure allowing scientists to withhold the details of their research from the the paying public who funds it, they found a way to educate and have their voices heard. Their free speech is blockaded in almost every way. Think about the first amendment and why we have it. We need it, so don't condemn those who insist on their right to use it.

UCLA Student

These people are nuts. If they really want an end to the use of animals in medical research, they should feel obligated to volunteer themselves for study. Otherwise, they are asking for an almost complete halt in medical progress.

Frankly, based on what I've read about the strict guidelines for the use of animals in research, I bet the animals have better medical care (teams of vets!) than a couple million uninsured American HUMANS.

Rational D

Google "ADMET" and "coin toss" and you'll see that we'll have more progress if we stop relying on faulty animal testing which is as accurate as a coin toss.

Not above nature

How do you think humans evolved to the point of having the ability to do medical research? (The answer is survival instinct, not biomedical research.) And why is it that with all the advancements in the medical field, so many Americans are still dying of preventable diseases? You, along with the rest of society, has been brainwashed by the media to believe that we are constantly at the risk of imminent death and disease, and this way, they will garner your support for further "research" while the medical community and pharmaceutical companies (major contributors to funding vivisection) are profiting from our dependence on "treatment," and not looking for cures (which are economically detrimental). Animal testing is an unnecessary, self-serving facet of human existence to "further" our longevity, when we are already at the top of the food chain, and control the resources of the entire globe!

vegina

Read more than. Their treatment is atrocious and 95% of all animals used in research (mice, birds, rats, cold-blooded animals) aren't covered or protected under the Animal Welfare Act. You are getting a fancy degree from a fancy school. Use your skills and do some research.

Ann

The police were enforcing the law. The lawsuit seems just silly and a pathetic grab at headlines.

Animal research saves the lives of humans and animals.

Rational D

Animal research isn't saving my sister with MS. She's saving herself with a gluten-free, dairy-free, vegan diet. She's cured herself in just 5 years while other patients around her are getting worse. Her most recent MRI showed now new lesions and her old ones shrinking. Just Google "ADMET" and "coin toss" to see how accurate animal testing is... then remember Vioxx.

vegina

Reread the article. The police are breaking the law. That is why they are being sued.

Koi

I'd like to see these protesters refuse vaccines for their sick child and abstain from antibiotics.

Unless they do that, they are hypocrites.

Rational D

Uh... a lot of them are and quite healthy as a result. (insert virtual smirk here)

SusanaS

It's a shame there's no perspective coming from the four plaintiffs, and the overall tone is so dismissive of their complaints. Would this be the case if the issue was police harassment/targeting of gay marriage advocates or union organizers? I suppose it's impossible to separate one's belief in the value of animal research from what may or may not be rights protected by the constitution.

Whether you love or loathe animal testing, the question is whether the PD crossed a line. Having lived in Los Angeles all my life, I can't believe this is really still being debated.

A Researcher

Strange comment given that these animal rights fanatics (yes, including the 4 plaintiffs) have yelled gay slurs and anti-semitic comments at the researchers during the protests, demonstrating their profound hatred and bigotry.

Rational D

You better prove such a ludicrous statement with a link to YouTube... that's a very outrageous claim... more of a smear...

vegina

I don't believe that for one second, A Researcher. Guessing from the names at least two of the plaintiffs are jewish.

Silly Hypocrites...

Funny that they are "claiming that school officers are harassing and intimidating them and denying them the right to free speech," since the activists are using harassment and intimidation in an attempt to deny researchers their right to free speech.

Rational D

Torture a form of free speech? What planet are you from? Perpetrating fraud on the public when animal testing is as accurate as a coin toss? That's worthy of being denounced.

nanook

a. too bad what the cops did was illegal and the what the activists did is not;b. vivisection....not protected by the first amendment. i'm trying to be nice but that kind of makes you a total moron.

Mark

Harassment and intimidation aren't free speech. Your ability to say that you oppose medical research with animals is protected free speech; but you have no right to shout it from a megaphone outside a researcher's home.

How many people who oppose biomedical research on animals owe their lives to such research - because they (or their parents) didn't suffer from polio (polio vaccines were developed from research in monkeys), or could be treated for diabetes (insulin came from dogs and cattle)? What a privilege to protest against something that has saved your life.

Rational D

No cure for cancer, MS, Parkinson's, ALS, Alzheimers.... long list. Anything that works is actually tested on humans to eventually see if it works. Just Google "ADMET" and "coin toss" together to get the skinny on animal testing, which is as accurate as a coin toss. Chocolate kills dogs but not humans. Case closed.

nanook

good for you, you have an opinion, but it is not how the first amendment works. you could protest on my sidewalk for my lack of lawncare....

it's a privilege to try to defend any of the billions of animals we're wiping off the face of the earth. most of us have the ability to live & die without exploiting others, and yet how many more centuries are you willing to agree with the few living better by profiting off the obliteration of the many?