Eco-Harassment Bill One Step Closer to Reality

The State Senate recently passed the eco-terrorism (harassment) bill. It has now been referred to the House Environmental Resources and energy committee. SB 1257 makes it a criminal act to express an opinion on an environmental or natural resource issue, if it results in the interruption of business or a loss of revenue. In addition to criminal penalties, the bill would require restitution to the business for lost revenues. The bill adds a sweeping new classification of "crimes" to ones already covered in the criminal code. Generally speaking, if protests go to the extreme of stopping the work of such industries as logging or oil and gas, they could be charged with eco-harassment.

We are concerned that polluters or developer interests might try to seek proscution of people who organize consumer boycotts, shareholder resolutions, peaceful protests, and other currently lawful activities that are done in order to express an environmental positions but may result in a loss of revenues to the offending business. A mother who is trying to get a polluting company to clean up their operation or a hunter trying to stop the destruction of a favorite outdoor location might find themselves hauled into court, charged with "environmental harassment." Clearly this legislation is designed to have a chilling effect on citizen activism.

Click here for more information and what you can do to take action.
Return to top

Oppose Eco-Harassment Bill in State House

The State Senate recently passed the eco-terrorism (harassment) bill. It will now be taken up by the State House. For those who value liberty and justice in Pennsylvania, this is not good news.

The bill adds a sweeping new classification of "crimes" to ones already covered in the criminal code. This bill will provide restitution to individuals and businesses alike effected by harmful, vicious and irresponsible environmental protests that halt/hinder daily activities. Generally speaking, if protests go to the extreme of stopping the work of such industries as logging or oil and gas, they could be charged with eco-harassment.

The language of the bill reads, "A person commits the offense of environmental harassment if the person communicates to another person a threat to commit, or cause to be committed, a crime of violence dangerous to human life or destructive to property or business practices, for the primary purpose of expressing a perspective on an environmental or natural resource issue."

Click here for more information and what you can do to take action.
Click here to read the full text of the bill.
Click here to read the full article in the Bradford Era newspaper.

Dangerous Eco-Harassment Bill One Step Closer to Reality

An eco-harassment bill, which has come under scrutiny by many environmental preservationists, is one step closer to becoming a reality after being passed by the state Senate. This bill started as "environmental terrorism" and was introduced by ultra-conservative Senator Joe Scarnati (R, Warren), who represents a district that encompasses parts of the Allegheny National Forest where timber industry protests frequently occur. In an obvious attempt to capitalize on public concerns in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, Scarnati's use of the term "environmental terrorism" created the impression that the bill's focus was on violent activities undertaken in the name of the environment. This is not the case.

SB 1257 makes it a criminal act to express an opinion on an environmental or natural resource issue, if it results in the interruption of business or a loss of revenue. In addition to criminal penalties, the bill would require restitution to the business for lost revenues.

The Sierra Club does not engage in or support acts of violence or destruction of property. We decry these actions whether they are done in the name of the environment or any other cause. There are already laws on the books against violence and property destruction. But we do recognize that peaceful protest has a long history in the United States and is protected as freedom of speech.

SB 1257, amended by the Senate to remove the reference to terrorism, is not the "environmental harassment" bill. The bill's vague and poorly-worded language is so broad that its reach covers everything from terroristic acts to currently-protected free speech. We are concerned that polluters or developer interests might try to seek proscution of people who organize consumer boycotts, shareholder resolutions, and other currently lawful activities that are done in order to express an environmental positions but may result in a loss of revenues to the offending business. A mother who is trying to get a polluting company to clean up their operation or a hunter trying to stop the destruction of a favorite outdoor location might find themselves hauled into court, charged with "environmental harassment." Clearly this legislation is designed to have a chilling effect on citizen activism.

Click here to read the full article.
Click here to read the full text of the bill.

Return to top