A 22-year-old sociology student was accused of “conspiring to commit animal enterprise terrorism” after he refused to out the radical animal-rights activists he was studying. (He also studies other kinds of radical environmentalists.)Scott deMuth pleaded not guilty and was released at the end of November, but still had to face a grand jury and answer questions about what he knows about a 2004 attack on an animal studies laboratory, and his involvement thereof.These’s an interesting think piece about it here, where the author posits that part of what makes this case complicated is the fact that many of the crimes committed by the people deMuth studies is against other academics. (The ALF seems to love claiming responsibility for firebombing university labs-not to mention professors’ houses and cars-and freeing their furry prisoners. Academics, meanwhile, might not love the idea of young students witnessing crimes against them in the name of research, and not doing anything about it.)This raises all kinds of barroom-ready questions. Should students studying illegal behavior be accused of conspiracy, or aiding and abetting crimes they witness? Should confidentiality in academic research be considered as sacred as it is in journalism? Discuss.
Tags
advertisement
More for You
-
14 images of badass women who destroyed stereotypes and inspired future generations
These trailblazers redefined what a woman could be.
Throughout history, women have stood up and fought to break down barriers imposed on them from stereotypes and societal expectations. The trailblazers in these photos made history and redefined what a woman could be. In doing so, they paved the way for future generations to stand up and continue to fight for equality.
-
Why mass shootings spawn conspiracy theories
Mass shootings and conspiracy theories have a long history.
While conspiracy theories are not limited to any topic, there is one type of event that seems particularly likely to spark them: mass shootings, typically defined as attacks in which a shooter kills at least four other people.
When one person kills many others in a single incident, particularly when it seems random, people naturally seek out answers for why the tragedy happened. After all, if a mass shooting is random, anyone can be a target.
Pointing to some nefarious plan by a powerful group – such as the government – can be more comforting than the idea that the attack was the result of a disturbed or mentally ill individual who obtained a firearm legally.
advertisement

